Euthanasia

Displaying 11 - 20 of 99
Titlesort descending Summary
Bogart v. Chapell


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. 
Brief Summary of Animal Euthanasia This article offers a brief summary of the topic of euthanasia of animals. It shows an overview of the reasons behind animal euthanasia, different euthanasia methods, and who may perform euthanasia. The article also refers to the states' approach to animal euthanasia.
C.M. v. E.M. This is a family law case concerning, among other issues, the euthanasia of a family companion animal. Defendant argues that Plaintiff violated an order in place by putting the family dog down without reason, necessity, and justification, and that the dog was an emotional support animal whose custody had not been determined. Defendant also argues that plaintiff did not allow defendant the opportunity to spend time with the dog before it was put down, and that he suffered emotional distress due to the dog's death. The court found that the euthanasia of the family dog did not violate the order in place, because the companion animal was not classified as "property" or an "asset" under the order in place, and that animals are afforded additional protection under the Family Court Act. Whether the animal was put down unnecessarily could be considered animal cruelty, but that inquiry would need to be determined in a criminal proceeding, and criminal charges were not filed. Accordingly, the court held that plaintiff did not violate the order by euthanizing the family dog.
CA - Crimes - § 597y. Violations; methods of killing; penalty A violation of Section 597u [Animals; prohibited killing methods] or 597v [Newborn dog or cat; methods of killing] is a misdemeanor.
CA - Euthanasia - § 382.4. Succinylcholine or sucostrin; administration to dog or cat In California, it is a misdemeanor for a person other than a licensed veterinarian, to administer succinylcholine, also known as sucostrin, to any dog or cat.
CA - Euthanasia - § 597u. Animals; prohibited killing methods This statute prohibits the use by any person of carbon monoxide gas or an intracardiac injection of a euthanasia agent on a conscious animal to kill an animal.
CA - Euthanasia - § 597v. Newborn dog or cat; methods of killing The statute prohibits the killing of a newborn dog or cat whose eyes have not yet opened by any other method than by the use of chloroform vapor or by inoculation of barbiturates.
CA - Euthanasia - § 597w. Repealed by Stats.2005, c. 652 (A.B.1426), § 2 This repealed statute prohibited the killing of any dog or cat by the use of any high-altitude decompression chamber or nitrogen gas.
CA - Euthanasia - § 599d. Policy of state regarding adoptable and treatable animals 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).
CA - Euthanasia - § 599e. Killing unfit animals after notice by officer; This statute requires an owner of an animal deemed to be unfit for employment to kill the animal within 12 hours, after being notified by any peace officer, or be subject to criminal penalties.

Pages