Results
| Title | Citation | Alternate Citation | Summary | Type | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| U.S. v. Jim | 888 F. Supp. 1058 (D. Or. 1995) |
Court considered defendant's claim based on newly enacted RFRA. Court finds defendant's asserted need to kill 12 eagles a year would decimate eagle population in Oregon. While not perfect, court finds the eagle permit system the least restrictive means to achieve the compelling need of protecting eagles. For further discussion on religious challenges to the BGEPA by Native Americans, see Detailed Discussion of Eagle Act. |
Case | |||||||
| Template for Country topical intro | Template for country topical introductions. | Policy | ||||||||
| Justice by and through Mosiman v. Vercher | 518 P.3d 131 (2022), review denied, 370 Or. 789, 524 P.3d 964 (2023) | 321 Or.App. 439 (Or.App., 2022) | The Oregon Court of Appeals, as a matter of first impression, considers whether a horse has the legal capacity to sue in an Oregon court. The Executive Director of Sound Equine Options (SEO), Kim Mosiman, filed a complaint naming a horse (“Justice”)as plaintiff with the Mosiman acting as his guardian, and claiming negligence against his former owner. In the instant appeal, Mosiman challenges the trial court's grant of defendant's motion to dismiss. In 2017, defendant's neighbor persuaded defendant to seek veterinary care for her horse. The veterinarian found the horse to be about 300 pounds underweight with significant walking difficulties and other maladies. The horse was voluntarily surrendered to Mosiman who eventually nursed the animal back to good health. In 2018, Mosiman filed a complaint on Justice's behalf for a single claim of negligence per se, alleging that defendant violated the Oregon anti-cruelty statute ORS 167.330(1) by failing to provide minimum care. Defendant moved to dismiss the complaint on the grounds that a horse lacks the legal capacity to sue and the court granted dismissal. Specifically, the trial court expressed concern over the "profound implications" of allowing a non-human animal to sue and stated that an appellate court could come to a different conclusion by "wad[ing] into the public policy debate involving the evolution of animal rights." Here, the appellate court first found no statutory authority for a court to appoint a guardian for an animal because "a horse inherently lacks self-determination and the ability to express its wishes in a manner the legal system would recognize." The animal has a "distinctive incapacity" that sets it apart from humans with legal disabilities that require appointment of a legal guardian. The court reaffirmed the law's treatment of animals as personal property and found no support in the precedent for permitting an animal to vindicate its own legal rights. While Oregon's animal welfare laws recognize animals as beings capable of feeling pain, this makes them a special type of property and imposes duties on the human owners rather than rights to the animal victims. The court held that only human beings and legislatively-created legal entities are persons with the capacity to sue under Oregon common law. The court emphasized that this holding does not prevent Oregon laws from ever recognizing an animal as a legal person, but the courts are not the appropriate vehicle to do that. Accordingly, this court affirmed the trial court's judgment dismissing the complaint with prejudice. | Case | ||||||
| Hurd v. State | 988 A.2d 1143 (Md. App., 2010) | 2010 WL 366582 (Md.App.), 190 Md.App. 479 (2010) |
In this Maryland case, Defendant appealed his convictions for two counts of aggravated cruelty to animals and two counts of malicious destruction of property valued under $500 relating to the fatal shooting of two of his neighbor's (Randolph's) dogs. On appeal, Defendant maintains the language of the former text of 10-416(b)(3), a section of the Natural Resources Code dealing with deer hunting, renders the shooting justifiable. The Court found that Section 10-416(b)(3) is ambiguous; as such, based on the rule of lenity, the Court construed section 10-416(b)(3), with one exception, as giving persons in Washington County (prior to the 2009 amendment) a right to kill a dog pursing a deer whether or not the dog was being used for purposes of deer hunting. However, the Court found that Section 10-416 of the Natural Resources Article gave Defendant no privilege to kill a dog pursuing a turkey. |
Case | ||||||
| Animal Liberation (Vic) Inc v Gasser | (1991) 1 VR 51 | (1990) Aust Torts Reports 81-027 |
Animal Liberation were injuncted from publishing words claiming animal cruelty in a circus or demonstrating against that circus. They were also found guilty of nuisance resulting from their demonstration outside that circus. On appeal, the injunctions were overturned although the finding of nuisance was upheld. |
Case | ||||||
| CA - Vehicle - § 23117. Transportation of animals; enclosure or restraint requirements | West's Ann.Cal.Vehicle Code § 23117 | CA VEHICLE § 23117 | This California law prohibits any person from transporting any animal in the open back of a vehicle on a highway unless the vehicle has sides that extend 46" vertically, or the animal is secured in a cage and cross-tethered to prevent it from jumping out of the vehicle. The law targets the transporting of dogs in the back of pickup trucks. Exclusions include the transportation of livestock and farm dogs. | Statute | ||||||
| Derecho Animal Volume 1 Núm 3 |
|
Policy | ||||||||
| UK - Animal Welfare - Animal Welfare (Sentencing) Act 2021 | 2021 c.21 | This Act increased the period that judges may impose prison sentences on those that breach the Animal Welfare Act 2006 (applicable in England and Wales). The Act came into force on 29 June 2021. Imprisonment has increased to 5 years (and/or an unlimited fine) for certain offences where a defendant is convicted on indictment at the Crown Court. This includes the offences of unnecessary suffering and dog fighting. Imprisonment on summary conviction for these offences at the Magistrates' Court is increased to 12 months, or a fine, or both. | Statute | |||||||
| AL - Initiatives - Amendment 5, Right to Hunt, Fish, and Harvest Wildlife | Amendment 5 (2014) | Amendment 5 will appear on the November 4, 2014 election. The proposed amendment asks voters "to clarify that the people have the right to hunt, fish, and harvest wildlife subject to reasonable regulations that promote conservation and management of fish and wildlife and preserve the future of hunting and fishing." | Statute | |||||||
| Rogers v. State | 760 S.W.2d 669 (Tex. App. 1988). |
Dog fighting case. Where the dog fighting area was in an open section of woods near the defendant's home, police officers were not required to obtain a search warrant before entering the defendant's property because of the "open fields" doctrine. |
Case |