16December2014

The Animal Lawyer

Posted by admin under: News.

http://www.wweek.com/portland/article-23626-the_animal_lawyer.html

0 

1December2014

Washington County Animal Services proposes major changes to county pet laws

Posted by admin under: News.

http://www.oregonlive.com/pets/index.ssf/2014/11/washington_county_animal_servi.html

0 

20November2014

Letter to the Editor: A disappointing animal abuse outcome

Posted by admin under: News.

A Disappointing Animal Abuse Outcome May 29, 2014 Siskiyou Daily

Comments Off 

20November2014

Siskiyou Plus Bear Hunt Proposal – Opposition – FOR THE RECORD

Posted by admin under: News.

Here is the letter to the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife.  Scott Beckstead attended the meeting on behalf of the Humane Society of the US.  Due to public outcry, the extra tags will not be issued.  This was a win for animal advocates.  Now the plan is to move the hunt to the fall instead of the spring, but this will be another battle for the future.  Read the rest of this entry »

Comments Off 

5November2014

OSB CLE Search Seizure Emily Elison

Posted by admin under: News.

Comments Off 

8September2014

Oregon Supreme Court: Animals Now Seen as “Victims” under Animal Neglect Statute

Posted by admin under: News.

By: Stacy A. McKerlie
samckerlie@gmail.com

Arnold Weldon Nix was indicted on 23 counts of first-degree animal neglect, and 70 counts of second-degree animal neglect. Each count identified a different animal. Nix was found guilty and was convicted of 20 counts of second-degree animal neglect under Oregon Revised Statute 167.325 (http://www.oregonlaws.org/ors/167.325). Defendant Nix argued that he should only be convicted of one count of animal neglect instead of 20 because there could only be one victim under the statute: the public or the animal’s owner. At the trial level, Nix was charged with only one conviction, despite the fact that he was found guilty of neglecting 20 animals. Under Oregon Revised Statute 161.067(http://www.oregonlaws.org/ors/161.067), the trial court concluded that only people, not animals, could be seen as victims.

ORS 161.067 states, “When the same conduct or criminal episode, though violating only one statutory provision involves two or more victims, there are as many separately punishable offenses as there are victims.” This law is also referred to as the “anti-merger” statute. Read the rest of this entry »

Comments Off 

1August2014

FDA Does Not Have To Hold Hearings On Anti-Biotic Use in Animal Feed Despite Promising to Do So Since 1977

Posted by admin under: News.

BY:    Robert S Simon
rssimon@reginamundi.org

Appeals court decision on NRDC’s lawsuit against FDA for failing to address antibiotic overuse in livestock production. The court grants judgment for the government  ruling that the court has not authority to require the agency to implement its Congressional mandate in any particular manner, least of all, in an effective manner.

Commentary – (this piece is the opinion of the author and not the opinion of the Oregon State Bar, the Animal Law Section Executive Committee, or the Section Members)

The U.S. Second Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) does not have to consider banning the practice of regularly feeding antibiotics to animals that are not sick despite its finding that such misuse of antibiotics threatens the effectiveness of essential human medicines. The appeals court overturned two district court rulings in cases brought by the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) and other groups, which directed the FDA to stop the routine use of certain antibiotics in healthy animals unless drug manufacturers proved the safety of such use. http://docs.nrdc.org/health/hea_14072401.asp Read the rest of this entry »

Comments Off 

21April2014

Court of Appeals: Admitting Dog’s Medical Records Violates Defendant’s Fourth Amendment

Posted by admin under: News.

By: Stacy A. McKerlie
samckerlie@gmail.com

An individual had become concerned when she suspected her neighbor, defendant Amanda Newcomb, was mistreating a dog. Defendant had been failing to provide food, attention, and was seen striking the dog. The concerned citizen made a report, which prompted a police officer to investigate. The police officer arrived and was allowed inside, where he saw, in plain view, the dog in a malnourished condition. When the officer inquired as to the dog’s weight, the defendant claimed she was out of dog food. The police officer asked the defendant if she would sign a medical release for her dog, but she refused. The officer seized the dog and took it to a veterinarian, who confirmed that the cause of sickness was lack of food, and that the dog was healthy otherwise. The officer did not request a warrant for the dog’s vital information that the veterinarian would obtain in the course of treatment. Read the rest of this entry »

Comments Off 

Upcoming Events