Results
| Title | Citation | Alternate Citation | Agency Citation | Summary | Type |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| CA - Euthanasia - § 599d. Policy of state regarding adoptable and treatable animals | West's Ann. Cal. Penal Code § 599d | CA PENAL § 599d | This law provides that it is the policy of the state that no adoptable animal should be euthanized if it can be adopted into a suitable home. (Editor's note: The law was part of SB 1785 (the Hayden Act) that expanded the holding time for companion animals and the duties of pounds and shelters who act as depositories for lost or stray animals). | Statute | |
| U.S. v. Wahchumwah | 710 F.3d 862 (9th Cir., 2012) | 13 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 2304, 2013 Daily Journal D.A.R. 2747 |
The United States Fish and Wildlife Services investigated a tip that the defendant was selling eagle parts in violation of the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act. Upon appeal, the defendant argued that his Fourth Amendment rights were violated by the undercover agent’s warrantless use of a concealed audio visual device to record the transaction inside the defendant’s home, but the appeals court disagreed. However, the appeals court reversed the defendant's conviction on Counts 2 or 3 and Counts 4 or 5 because those counts were multiplicitous. |
Case | |
| Rule v. Fort Dodge Animal Health, Inc. | 604 F.Supp.2d 288 (D.Mass.,2009) | 2009 WL 678744 (D.Mass.) |
The plaintiff brought this action against Defendants Fort Dodge Animal Health, Inc. and Wyeth Corporation, seeking economic damages suffered from the purchase and injection of her dog with ProHeart® 6 to prevent heartworm. The complaint alleged products liability/failure to warn, breach of implied warranty of merchantability, and violation of state deceptive business practices, among others. In 2004, defendants recalled ProHeart® 6 in response to a request by FDA due to reported adverse reactions. This Court found that Massachusetts law follows the traditional “economic loss rule,” where such losses are not recoverable in in tort and strict liability actions where there has been no personal injury or property damage. Here, the plaintiff was barred from recovering because she has not alleged any personal injury or property damage under her products liability claim. Further, plaintiff failed to show that defendants' deceptive act caused some injury and compsensable loss. Defendants' motion to dismiss was granted. |
Case | |
| CITES Conf. 9.24 |
This is the attempt by the Party States under CITES to define just what "endangered" might mean for different types of plants and animals. |
Treaty | |||
| People v. Chenault | 227 Cal. App. 4th 1503, review filed (Aug. 25, 2014) | 175 Cal. Rptr. 3d 1 (Cal.App.Dist.4, 2014), review filed (Aug. 25, 2014) | Darrell Chenault was convicted on 13 counts of lewd acts on a child under 14 years of age and sentenced to 75 years to life in prison. On appeal he contended that the trial court abused its discretion by allowing a support dog to be present during the testimony of two child witnesses without individualized showings of necessity, and that the presence of the dog was inherently prejudicial and violated his federal constitutional rights to a fair trial and to confront the witnesses against him. The appellate court concluded that a trial court has authority under Evidence Code section 765 to allow the presence of a therapy or support dog during a witness’s testimony.” The court did “not believe that the presence of a support dog is inherently more prejudicial than the presence of a support person,” citing the New York case of Tohom. Chinault argued that “individualized showings of necessity” should have been required for F. and C. before the support dog could be present in the courtroom. The appellate court concluded however that “a case-specific finding that an individual witness needs the presence of a support dog is not required by the federal Constitution,” for which Tohom was again cited. Based on the court's review of the record, the appellate court concluded that the trial court made implicit findings that the presence of Asta, the support dog, would assist or enable F. and C. to testify completely and truthfully without undue harassment or embarrassment. The court also took measures to reduce any possible prejudice to Chenault by setting forth logistics for the entry, positioning, and departure of the support dog, along with F. and C., during jury recesses so the dog was as unobtrusive and least disruptive as reasonably possible. The judgment was affirmed. | Case | |
| US - AWA - 1966 Public Law 89-544 | 1966 PL 89-544 |
As stated in Senate Report No. 1280 there were three main purposes for the proposed law in 1966: (1) to protect the owners of pet dogs and cats from the theft of their pets; (2) to prevent the use or sale of stolen dogs or cats for purposes of research or experimentation; and (3) to establish humane standards for the treatment of dogs, cats, and certain other animals by animal dealers and research facilities. |
Statute | ||
| Bogart v. Chapell | 396 F.3d 548 (4th Cir., 2005) |
A woman was housing hundreds of animals in her residential home, the animals were seized and more than two hundred of them were euthanized. The woman brought a section 1983 claim against the county sheriff's department and human society. The trial court granted defendants summary judgment and the Court of Appeals affirmed holding no viable due process claim existed arising from the euthanization. |
Case | ||
| Alternatives Research & Development Foundation v. Glickman | 101 F.Supp.2d 7 (D.D.C.,2000) |
In this case, the plaintiffs, a non-profit organization, a private firm and an individual, alleged that the defendants, the USDA and APHIS violated the mandate of the Animal Welfare Act (AWA) by promulgating regulations that exclude birds, mice and rats from the definition of “animal” under the Act. Defendants moved to dismiss, arguing that all three plaintiffs lack standing to bring suit. Defendants also moved to dismiss on the grounds that the exclusion of the three species is within the agency's Congressionally delegated discretion, not subject to judicial review. The court denied defendant's motion, holding that based on Lujan , defendants challenge to standing failed. Further, the AWA does not grant the USDA "unreviewable discretion" to determine what animals are covered under the AWA. |
Case | ||
| CO - Restaurant - 25-4-1615. Pet dogs in retail food establishments | C.R.S.A. § 25-4-1615 | CO ST § 25-4-1615 | This 2020 Colorado law allows a person to have a pet dog in an outdoor dining area of a retail food establishment if several conditions are met (including, but not limited to, the presence of a separate entrance for the dogs and their owners, requiring owners to keep dogs on leashes or in pet carriers, and not allowing the dogs on furniture or fixtures). The law allows a retail food establishment to elect not to allow dogs in its outdoor dining area. In addition, the governing body of a city, county, or city and county may prohibit the presence of pet dogs in outdoor dining areas of retail food establishments located within the governing body's jurisdiction | Statute | |
| MA - Disaster Planning - Massachusetts Emergency Animal Annex | Comprehensive Emergency Management Plan (CEMP) | The Comprehensive Emergency Management Plan (CEMP) is an all hazards plan developed to address the natural and man-caused hazards that threaten Massachusetts. The CEMP and ESF Annexes describes the system that will be used in Massachusetts to prevent, prepare for, respond to, and recover from an emergency or disaster. It also identifies and assigns specific areas of responsibility for coordinating resources to support the response to an emergency or disaster. The Massachusetts Emergency Support Function 11 (MAESF-11) Agriculture, Animals and Natural Resources provides a framework for coordination and cooperation across state agencies and other organizations regarding the control and support of animal sheltering, search, rescue, recovery, and reunification needs and activities before, during, and after a disaster, or emergency. | Administrative |