|CA - Abandonment - § 597.2. Equines; abandoned or relinquished; auction and adoption programs||
This California statute sets forth the requirements for the sale of equines at a private or public auction and that the minimum price must be above the animal's slaughter price. It also provides that a sale to an individual who buys an equine under the personal use provision shall submit a written statement declaring that the person is adopting the equine for personal use and not for purposes of resale, resale for slaughter, or holding or transporting the equine for slaughter.
|CA - Abandonment - § 597.1. Failure to care for animals; misdemeanor; powers and duties||
Every owner, driver, or keeper of any animal who permits the animal to be in any building, enclosure, lane, street, square, or lot of any city, county, city and county, or judicial district without proper care and attention is guilty of a misdemeanor. The statutes also creates a duty in peace officers, humane society officers, and animal control officers to cause the animal to be killed or rehabilitated and placed in a suitable home on information that the animal is stray or abandoned.
|Butcher v. Gay||
|Broden v. Marin Humane Society||Owner of animals that had been impounded from reptile store brought administrative mandamus proceeding, challenging conclusions by hearing officer at hearing that followed animal control service's seizure of animals from store. On appeal, the court held that the warrantless entry of animal control officer into store was justified by exigent circumstances and that the owner lost all possessory interest in seized animals by failing to pay costs of seizure and impoundment within 14 days of seizure.|
|Betts v. City of Long Beach Department of Health and Human Services|
|Baugh v. Beatty||
|Ballas v Ballas||
|Auburn Woods I Homeowners Ass'n v. Fair Employment and Housing Com'n||
|Anna Guha, Susan Mary Jackson, Christy Ann Morgan, Plaintiffs, v. Cloughery Packing LLC dba Farmer John; Corcpork, Inc., a Calif||This case involves an action by plaintiffs, consumers who have eaten pork from defendant's company, against defendant pork-producers under California's anti-cruelty and unlawful business practices laws. Specifically, plaintiffs allege that defendant's use of gestation crates for pregnant sows is illegal under California Penal Code Section 597t (a section that requires anyone who keeps an animal confined in an enclosed area must provide it with an adequate exercise area). Thus, defendants' violation of 597t provides a predicate for violation under California's Business and Professions Code Section 17200, better known as the unlawful business or practice act. Further, plaintiffs contend that the Farmer John brand misleads reasonable consumers into believing that such pork products are produced in a humane fashion. Farmer John's parent company, Hormel Foods, states in its annual report that it has a "zero tolerance" for the inhumane treatment of animals.|
|Animal Protection and Rescue League v. California||