Results
| Title | Citation | Alternate Citation | Summary | Type |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| MT - Exotic pets - Chapter 4. Commercial Activities. | MCA 87-4-801 to 87-4-808 | MT ST 87-4-801 to 87-4-808 | This set of Montana laws covers both "roadside menagerie" (any place where one or more wild animals are kept in captivity for the evident purpose of exhibition or attracting trade, excluding an educational institution or a traveling theatrical exhibition or circus based outside of Montana) and "wild animal menagerie" (any place where one or more bears or large cats, including cougars, lions, tigers, jaguars, leopards, pumas, cheetahs, ocelots, and hybrids of those large cats are kept in captivity for use other than public exhibition). The latter definition seems to cover the keeping of those listed species as exotic pets. Under the section, it is unlawful for any person to operate a roadside menagerie or wild animal menagerie without a permit. The annual permit fee for five or less animals is $10. The annual permit fee for more than five animals is $25. | Statute |
| Harvard College v. Canada (Commissioner of Patents) | 2002 SCC 76 | [2002] 4 S.C.R. 45 |
The respondent applied for a patent on an invention entitled “transgenic animals”. In its patent application, the respondent seeks to protect both the process by which the "oncomice" are produced and the end product of the process, i.e. the founder mice and the offspring whose cells contain the oncogene. The process and product claims extend to all non‑human mammals. The process claims were allowed by the Patent Examiner, while the product claims were rejected. The appellant Commissioner confirmed the refusal of the product claims. The Federal Court, Trial Division, dismissed the respondent’s appeal from the appellant’s decision. At the Supreme Court of Canada, the Court held the appeal should be allowed. A higher life form is not patentable because it is not a “manufacture” or “composition of matter” within the meaning of “invention” in s. 2 of the Patent Act . |
Case |
| Harvey v. Southern Pac. Co. | 80 P. 1061 (1905) | 46 Or. 505 (1905) |
This is a case involving a train hitting a cow. This case involves a judgment for defendant based upon plaintiff's common-law negligence complaint in that defendant ran its train upon and killed the plaintiff's cow. The appellate court upheld defendant's motion for a directed verdict where plaintiff alleged negligence on the part of defendant for failing to fence in its track. |
Case |
| Topical Introductions | Welcome to our Topical Introductions Page! Topical Introductions function as portals to more information on specific topics from "ag-gag" to zoos. Each topic introduction contains a collection of legal materials (cases, laws, and articles) for a specific issue with a short summary and detailed legal analysis. Topics range from companion animal issues (like dog bite laws, lost pets, and custody issues involving pets in divorce) to complex federal laws such as the U.S. Endangered Species Act or the Animal Welfare Act. Are you looking for a specific topic? Go to our Purple Navigation Bar and select "Search Materials." From there, go to "Legal Materials Type" and scroll down to "Topical Introductions" to select one of our 90+ different topics. Each topic is listed in alphabetical order. | Policy | ||
| People v. Williams | 15 Cal. App. 5th 111 (Cal. Ct. App. 2017), reh'g denied (Sept. 20, 2017) | 222 Cal.Rptr.3d 806 (Cal. Ct. App. 2017) | In this case, defendants were convicted of felony dog fighting and felony animal cruelty. On appeal, defendants sought to suppress evidence and to quash and traverse the search warrant that led to their convictions. Police officers responding to a report of a thin, loose, horse near the defendants' home entered the property in order to make reasonable attempts to secure the loose horse and determine if there was a suitable corral on the property. The officers knew there had been prior calls to the property in response to reported concerns about the conditions of horses and pit bulls on the property. Further, one officer heard puppies barking inside the home when she knocked on the door trying to contact defendants, and another officer heard a dog whining from inside the garage. There were strong odors of excessive fecal matter reasonably associated with unhealthful housing conditions. Under those circumstances, it was reasonable for the officers to be concerned there was a dog in distress inside the garage and possibly in need of immediate aid, and the court found there was nothing unreasonable about one officer standing on the front driveway and simply looking through the broken window in the garage door to determine whether the dog he heard making a whining bark was in genuine distress. Nor was it unreasonable for the officers to then proceed to the back yard after having looked in the garage. As a result, the court ruled that the information the officers had justified the issuance of the search warrant, and thus the order denying the motion to suppress evidence and to quash and traverse the warrant was affirmed. The defendants' judgments of conviction were also affirmed. | Case |
| NY - Sharks - Article 13. Marine and Coastal Resources. | McKinney's E. C. L. § 13-0338 | NY ENVIR CONSER § 13-0338 | This New York law prohibits the practice known as "shark finning." The section provides that no person shall possess shark fins in the marine and coastal district unless the requisite shark carcass is also possessed. It defines "finning" as "the removal of a fin, other than the caudal fin, from a shark and not retaining the remainder of the shark's carcass." | Statute |
| MI - Foxes - Chapter 324. Natural Resources and Environmental Protection Act. | M.C.L.A. 324.43101 - 43104 | MI ST 324.43101 - 43104 | These sections lay out the regulations and prohibited acts with regard to foxes in captivity. | Statute |
| Citizens for Responsible Wildlife Management v. State | 71 P.3d 644 (Wash. 2003) | 149 Wash.2d 622 (Wash. 2003) |
A citizen groups filed a declaratory judgment action against the State of Washington seeking a determination that the 2000 initiative 713 barring use of body-gripping traps, sodium fluoroacetate, or sodium cyanide to trap or kill mammals was unconstitutional. The Supreme Court found that appellants did not show beyond a reasonable doubt that Initiative 713 violated the constitution, and thus affirmed the superior court's denial of the summary judgment motion. The court also held that the initiative was exempt from the constitutional provision prohibiting legislation that revises or amends other acts without setting them forth at full length. |
Case |
| Snyder v. Bio-Lab, Inc. | 405 N.Y.S.2d 596 (N.Y.Sup.,1978) | 94 Misc.2d 816 (N.Y.Sup.,1978) |
Plaintiffs sought damages after having to slaughter dairy cows that were injured by defendant’s defective machine. The Court held that plaintiffs could recover 1) the fair market value less salvage value of the cows, 2) the loss of profit during the period after the incident when cows of comparable quality became available on the market, and 3) the calculable loss in milk production caused by the incident's negative impact on the milk production level of the remaining cows. |
Case |
| England, Wales & Scotland - Wild animals - Wild Mammals (Protection) Act 1996 | 1996 CHAPTER 3 | An Act providing protection for wild mammals against certain acts of deliberate harm. “Wild mammal” means any mammal which is not a “protected animal” within the meaning of the Animal Welfare Act 2006 (Schedule 3, Section 13 of the 2006 Act). The following offences are specified in relation to any wild mammal: to mutilate, kick, beat, nail or otherwise impale, stab, burn, stone, crush, drown, drag or asphyxiate. The offences require proof of intent to inflict unnecessary suffering. | Statute |