Results
| Title | Citation | Alternate Citation | Summary | Type |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| State v. Newcomb | 359 Or 756 (2016) | In this case, the Supreme Court of Oregon reviewed a case in which defendant accused the State of violating her constitutional rights by taking a blood sample of her dog without a warrant to do so. Ultimately, the court held that the defendant did not have a protected privacy interest in the dog’s blood and therefore the state did not violate defendant’s constitutional rights. Defendant’s dog, Juno, was seized by the Humane Society after a worker made a visit to plaintiff’s home and had probable cause to believe that Juno was emaciated from not receiving food from plaintiff. After Juno was seized and taken into custody for care, the veterinarian took a blood sample from Juno to confirm that there was no other medical reason as to why Juno was emaciated. Defendant argued that this blood test was a violation of her constitutional rights because the veterinarian did not have a warrant to perform the test. The court dismissed this argument and held that once Juno was taken into custody, defendant had “lost her rights of dominion and control over Juno, at least on a temporary basis.” Finally, the court held that because Juno was lawfully seized and Juno’s blood was “not ‘information’ that defendant placed in Juno for safekeeping or to conceal from view,” defendant’s constitutional rights had not been violated. | Case | |
| NM - Invasive Species - Chapter 17. Game and Fish and Outdoor Recreation. | NMSA 1978, § 17-4-35 | NM ST § 17-4-35 | These New Mexico statutes pertain to controlling aquatic invasive species. If a conveyance or equipment has been in an infested water body, the owner must decontaminate it or have it inspected and certified prior to entering another water body in the state. Law enforcement officers must take action to prevent infested equipment from entering water bodies, and may impound equipment if the person transporting it refuses to submit to an inspection and the officer has reason to believe that an aquatic invasive species may be present. | Statute |
| United States of America v. Victor Bernal and Eduardo Berges | 90 F.3d 465 (11th Cir. 1996) |
Victor Bernal and Eduardo Berges were convicted of various crimes in connection with an attempt to export two endangered primates--an orangutan and a gorilla--from the United States to Mexico in violation of the Lacey Act Amendments of 1981 and the Endangered Species Act of 1973. While the main issue before the court was a downward departure in sentencing guidelines, the court found the purpose of the Lacey Act is protect those species whose continued existence is presently threatened by gradually drying up international market for endangered species, thus reducing the poaching of those species in their native countries. |
Case | |
| MD - Pet Trust - §Title 14. Trusts. | MD Code, Estates and Trusts, § 14.5-407 | MD EST & TRST § 14.5-407 | Maryland enacted its original "pet trust" law in 2009. The law was then repealed and reenacted in 2015 under a different section. Under the law, a trust may be created to provide for the care of an animal alive during the lifetime of the settlor. The trust terminates when the last animal subject to the trust dies. The property of the trust may only be used for the intended purpose of the trust (e.g., taking care of the animal). | Statute |
| State v. Dan | 20 P.3d 829 (Or. 2001) | 172 Or.App. 645 (Or. 2001) |
This is an appeal of a circuit court decision in an aggravated animal abuse case. A defendant was convicted in circuit court of aggravated animal abuse and other charges. On appeal, the Court of Appeals held that the defendant's testimony that he loved his children more than the dog he shot was not evidence of his character, thus the evidence offered by the state in rebuttal (that the defendant assaulted his spouse) was not admissible and not harmless error by the trial court. |
Case |
| Hawthorn Corp. v. U.S. | 98 F.Supp.3d 1226 (M.D. Fla., 2015) | 2015 WL 1346473 (M.D. Fla., 2015) | Plaintiff's complaint was based on government employees’ duty to exercise reasonable care in the execution of their official duties. Government moved to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The district court found the action was barred by three exceptions to the Federal Torts Claims Act: the misrepresentation exception, the discretionary exception, and the interference with contracts exception. Government motion was granted. | Case |
| MT - Hunting - Chapter 3. Restrictions and Regulations | MCA 87-6-215 | MT ST 87-6-215 (formerly MT ST 87-3-142) | This law represents Montana's hunter harassment law. Under the law, a person may not intentionally interfere with the lawful taking of a wild animal or fishing by another, which includes disturbing a wild animal by engaging in actions or the placement of objects/substances to prevent its taking. This section does not prohibit a landowner or lessee from taking reasonable measures to prevent imminent danger to domestic livestock and equipment. | Statute |
| Animal Legal Defense Fund v. Veneman | 490 F.3d 725 (9th Cir. 2007) | 07 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 6427 |
Plaintiffs, who include the Animal Legal Defense Fund ("ALDF"), the Animal Welfare Institute ("AWI"), and three individuals, challenged the United States Department of Agriculture's ("USDA") decision not to adopt a Draft Policy that would have provided guidance to zoos, research facilities, and other regulated entities in how to ensure the psychological well-being of nonhuman primates in order to comply with the federal Animal Welfare Act ("AWA"). The district court granted USDA's motion to dismiss, to which the ALDF timely appealed. Over a vigorous dissent, an appeals court panel reversed the district court's decision. After a sua sponte call, however, a majority of active judges voted to rehear the case en banc. Yet, before the rehearing occurred, the parties had reached a settlement and had agreed to dismiss the case with prejudice provided that the panel's opinion and judgment were vacated. The majority of the en banc panel agreed to vacate the panel's opinion and judgment with prejudice, but Judge Thomas filed the dissenting opinion. |
Case |
| IL - Disaster - Illinois Emergency Management Agency Act. 3305/4. Definitions. | 20 I.L.C.S. 3305/4 | IL ST CH 20 § 3305/4 | The Illinois' Illinois Emergency Management Agency Act defines Emergency Operations Plan as the written plan of the State and political subdivisions describing the organization, mission, and functions of the government and supporting services for responding to and recovering from disasters and shall include plans that take into account the needs of those individuals with household pets and service animals following a major disaster or emergency. | Statute |
| State Dog Laws | This map gives links to the dog laws of every state. Those files contain what we call the consolidated dog laws. Included topics in these dog laws are dangerous dog/dog bite laws, fish and game laws related to dogs, animal control laws affecting dogs, and dog breeding/sale laws. Some states even have unique laws related to dogs such as designation of state dogs and laws related to dining in outdoor restaurants with pet dogs. To see the District of Columbia (D.C.) laws, click here. | State map |