Results
| Title | Citation | Alternate Citation | Summary | Type |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Canada - B.C. - B.C. Statutes - Vancouver Charter. Part XIV -- Nuisances | S.B.C. 1953, c. 55, s. 323 - 324(A)3 | These British Columbia, Canada laws provide the laws for preventing, abating, and prohibiting nuisances, which include dangerous dogs. The laws describe what constitutes a dangerous dog and what actions may be taken with a dangerous dog. The set also contains provisions that allow for the creation of by-laws to control and impound animals. | Statute | |
| NH - Portsmouth - Chapter 4: Food Licensing and Regulations | City of Portsmouth, New Hampshire, Code of Ordinances §§ 4.101 - 4.507 |
These Portsmouth, New Hampshire ordinances provide licensing, inspection, and penalty provisions for milk, slaughterhouses, butchers and restaurants. |
Local Ordinance | |
| GA - Dog - Consolidated Dog Laws | Ga. Code Ann., § 4-8-1 - 45; Ga. Code Ann., § 4-14-1 - 4-15-1; Ga. Code Ann., § 26-2-160; Ga. Code Ann., § 27-3-16 - 18; § 27-3-49; Ga. Code Ann., § 16-11-107 - 107.1; Ga. Code Ann., § 50-3-88 | GA ST § 4-8-1 to 45; GA ST § 4-14-1 to 4-15-1; GA ST § 27-3-16 to 18; § 27-3-49; GA ST § 16-11-107 - 107.1; GA ST § 50-3-88 | These Georgia statutes comprise the state's dog laws and the "Responsible Dog Ownership Law." Among the provisions of the Responsible Dog Ownership Law include a requirement for registration of dangerous dogs as well as the necessity of such owner to carry at least $50,000 in liability insurance. Owners of these dogs who do not comply with these and other provisions may have their dogs confiscated and destroyed. Any person who violates this article is guilty of a misdemeanor. | Statute |
| CA - Burro - § 4600. Killing or capturing undomesticated burro; prima facie evidence | West's Ann. Cal. Fish & G. Code § 4600 | CA FISH & G § 4600 | This section makes it unlawful to kill, wound, capture, or have in possession any undomesticated burro. An undomesticated burro is a wild burro or a burro which has not been tamed or domesticated for a period of three years after its capture. | Statute |
| Humane Soc. of U.S. v. Bryson | 924 F.Supp.2d 1228 (D.Or., 2013) | 2013 WL 595092 (D.Or., 2013) |
In order to manage sea lion predation of salmonids at the Bonneville Dam, the NMFS decided to authorize agencies from Washington, Oregon, and Idaho to lethally remove sea lions that were not protected by the ESA when efforts to deter their feeding on salmonids failed. The Humane Society of the United States, Wild Fish Conservancy, Bethanie O'Driscoll, and Andrea Kozil disagreed and sued the NMFS; the agencies of Washington, Oregon, and Idaho intervened. Finding that the NMFS’s authorizations did not conflict with the MMPA’s protection of Stella Sea Lions, that the NMFS complied with the National Environmental Protection Act, and that the NMFS did not act arbitrarily and capriciously when it issued the authorizations, the district court granted the NMFS’s and the state agencies’ cross motion for summary judgment. The case was therefore dismissed. |
Case |
| DE - Law-Enforcement Animal - § 1250. Offenses against law-enforcement animals | 11 Del.C. § 1250 | DE ST TI 11 § 1250 | This Delaware statute penalizes those who harass a law-enforcement animal. The statute states what constitutes assault in the first and second degree against a law-enforcement animal. | Statute |
| Placey v. Placey | 51 So.3d 374 (Ala. Civ. App., 2010) | 2010 WL 2342397 (Ala. Civ. App.) |
The appellate court held that the Protection from Abuse Act authorized the trial court to determine and award ownership of Preston the dog in a domestic violence dispute between a mother and daughter. It then awarded ownership rights to the mother because took better care of the Preston and it was in his best interest. |
Case |
| Perez v. County of Monterey | --- Cal.Rptr.3d ---- 2019 WL 621483 (Cal. Ct. App. Feb. 14, 2019) | Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 1493 (Cal. Ct. App. Feb. 14, 2019) | In this California case, the plaintiffs sued to challenge the validity of the County of Monterey rooster-keeping ordinance, seeking a declaratory judgment that the law is unconstitutional. The ordinance limits residents to no more than four roosters on a single property without a rooster keeping permit and also describes care and keeping requirements. The trial court found that the ordinance did not violate the constitution and entered judgment for the City. Plaintiffs here appeal that decision, arguing that the ordinance: (1) takes property without compensation in violation of the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution; (2) infringes on Congress’ authority to regulate interstate commerce; (3) violates the Equal Protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution; (4) is a prohibited bill of attainder; and (5) violates the rights to privacy and to possess property guaranteed by the California Constitution. With respect to the Fifth Amendment taking challenge, the court found that the regulatory takings argument failed because there is no evidence that the ordinance affected plaintiffs or that they even applied for or were eligible for a permit. As to the interstate commerce challenge, plaintiffs provided no evidence that the ordinance would cause excess roosters to be divested from owners and sold in commerce to support this claim. As to Equal Protection, the plaintiffs correctly assert that the ordinance treats people differently based on age (i.e., students engaged in 4-H or FFA activities are exempted from the four-rooster limitation). However, the court found that the county stated a legitimate objective of public health and safety and this differential treatment of a non-suspect class advances that interest. Finally, the court found the ordinance was not a bill of attainder since it prospectively regulates roosters and also that it does not violate California's right to privacy and property possession. Indeed, the court found that plaintiff did not identify a specific privacy interest implicated by the ordinance. Thus, the judgment was affirmed. | Case |
| WA - Trade - 77.15.260. Unlawful trafficking in fish, shellfish, or wildlife--Penalty | West's RCWA 77.15.260 | WA ST 77.15.260 | This Washington statute pertains to unlawful trafficking in fish, shellfish, and wildlife. A person is guilty of unlawful trafficking in the second degree if s/he traffics in such animals with a wholesale value of less than $250 and the animals are unclassified or classified as game, food fish, shellfish, game fish, or protected wildlife. Unlawful trafficking in the first degree occurs when the animals have a value of $250 or more or the animals are classified as endangered or deleterious exotic wildlife. | Statute |
| Revista Brasileira de Direito Animal Volume 13 |
SUMÁRIOEDITORIAL Heron José de Santana Gordilho DOUTRINA INTERNACIONAL/INTERNATIONAL ARTICLES1. PORQUE É CRIME ESMAGAR UM PEIXINHO DOURADO?: DANO, VÍTIMA E A ESTRUTURA DOS CRIMES ANTI-CRUELDADE |
Policy |