Results
| Title | Citation | Alternate Citation | Agency Citation | Summary | Type |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Animal Law Index Volume 10 |
|
Policy | |||
| People v. Smalling | --- Cal.Rptr.3d ----, 2019 WL 2400413 (Cal. App. Dep't Super. Ct. May 30, 2019) | Defendant was cited for allowing a dog controlled or owned by her to cause injury or death to a service dog in violation of California’s Penal Code. The offense was an infraction. The defendant pled no contest and was fined $157. The service dog’s owner requested a restitution hearing, but the trial court denied the request stating that since the offense was an infraction, a restitution hearing was not permissible. The service dog owner appealed the decision of the trial court. The Court ultimately found that the trial court incorrectly stated that a victim of an infraction is not entitled to restitution. Both the California Constitution and the California Penal Code (the very statute that the Defendant was convicted of violating) entitle the victim to restitution. The California Constitution specifically states that restitution shall be ordered in every case regardless of the sentence or disposition of a crime in which a victim suffers a loss. The Court stated that an infraction is a crime, therefore, a restitution hearing is mandatory. The statute that the Defendant violated (section 600.2 of California’s Penal Code) also stated that a defendant shall be ordered to make restitution. The trial court abused its discretion in erroneously concluding that a crime victim is not entitled to restitution if the offense committed is an infraction and ultimately denying the victim restitution. The Defendant argued that an order for payment of restitution would be improper because she was never advised that victim restitution would be a consequence of her plea and that such an order would violate her plea agreement. She also argued that the trial court found, in good faith, that restitution was unnecessary. The Court, however, found the Defendant’s arguments unpersuasive. The Court reversed the order denying victim restitution and remanded the matter to the trial court with directions to conduct a restitution hearing. | Case | ||
| Conti v. ASPCA | 353 N.Y.S.2d 288 (N.Y.,1974) | 77 Misc.2d 61 (1974) |
A parrot flew away from its original owner, was found and adopted by the plaintiff, and subsequently seized by the ASPCA for return to the original owner. The finder-plaintiff brought an action of replevin to recover possession of the parrot. The court found that the bird found was the same as the one lost and it did not extinguish the original owner's right to possession by reverting to a wild state. |
Case | |
| WY - Ordinances - § 11-31-301. Public nuisance; notice; penalties; rules and regulations; | W. S. 1977 § 11-31-301 | WY ST § 11-31-301 | This Wyoming statute provides that a board of county commissioners may declare the running at large of any specified animals in unincorporated areas within the county limits a public nuisance. Dogs or other animals, whose ownership cannot be determined, may be destroyed. A dog injuring or killing livestock may be killed by the owner of the livestock or his agent or any peace officer. However, any dog attacking any person in a vicious manner may be impounded by the county sheriff or animal control officer and held in quarantine for at least fifteen (15) days and not more than twenty (20) days after the attack to determine whether the dog has any disease which may be communicated to humans. A board of county commissioners may enact regulations relative to dogs running at large, vicious dogs, dogs running wild game or livestock or acts by other animals which shall carry out the purposes of this section. The county may also establish a county license fee and an animal control program/facility. | Statute | |
| SC - Impound - § 47-3-40. Impoundment or quarantine of cat or dog running at large; release to owner. | Code 1976 § 47-3-40 | SC ST § 47-3-40 | This South Carolina statute provides that the county or municipal animal shelter or animal control officers shall pick up and impound or quarantine any dog running at large. To obtain release of a dog or cat, an owner must prove that the dog or cat is currently inoculated against rabies and also pay an impound or quarantine fee determined by the governing body of the county or municipality. | Statute | |
| In re: JAMES JOSEPH HICKEY, JR., d/b/a S & H SUPPLY CO., AND JERRY R. BRANTON | 53 Agric. Dec. 1087 (1994) | 1994 WL 657129 (U.S.D.A.) | Respondents' failure to file timely answer, or deny allegations of complaint, constituted admission of complaint allegations and waiver of hearing, irrespective of respondents' contention that they were justified in not filing answer because ALJ did not rule on respondents' motions to sever, strike and make more definite and certain, since Department's rules of practice do not alter time for filing answer when such motions are filed. | Case | |
| US - Endangered Species - Final Rule To Designate Critical Habitat for the Santa Ana Sucker (Catostomus santaanae) | 2005 WL 12396 (F.R.) | 50 CFR Part 17, RIN 1018-AT57 |
Under this final rule, the FWS has designated critical habitat for the Santa Ana Sucker, in 3 noncontiguous populations in The lower and middle Santa Ana River in San Bernardino, Riverside, and Orange counties; the East, West, and North Forks of the San Gabriel River in Los Angeles County; and lower Big Tujunga Creek, a tributary of the Los Angeles River in Los Angeles County. We have identified 23,719 acres (ac) (9,599 hectares (ha)) of aquatic and riparian habitats essential to the conservation of the Santa Ana sucker. |
Administrative | |
| Feld Entertainment, Inc. v. A.S.P.C.A. | 523 F.Supp.2d 1 (D.D.C., 2007) | 2007 WL 3285836 (D.D.C.) |
Pending before the Court is Defendant American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, et al.'s (“ASPCA”) Motion to Temporarily Stay All Proceedings. The suit arises from Feld Entertainment, Inc. (“FEI”) claim against the ASPCA and other defendants, including Tom Rider, alleging violations of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (“RICO”). The gravamen of plaintiff's complaint is that defendant Tom Rider has been bribed by the organizational defendants to participate in the ESA Action against FEI in violation of federal law. The court agreed that the public interest in the ESA claim weighs in favor of granting the temporary stay. |
Case | |
| China - Fishing - China Fisheries Law | Order No. 34 (1986) |
Although old, it remains the law for fishing in China " for the purpose of enhancing the protection, increase, development and reasonable utilization of fishery resources, developing artificial cultivation, protecting fishery workers' lawful rights and interests and boosting fishery production, so as to meet the requirements of socialist construction and the needs of the people." |
Statute |