Colorado

Displaying 51 - 60 of 67
Titlesort descending Summary
CO - Wildlife trade - Illegal sale of wildlife; penalties Colorado statute addressing illegal sale of wildlife, including bears.
CO - Wildlife, nongame - Wildlife; Illegal Possession Colorado law prohibits the taking, hunting, or possession of animals deemed property of the state or wildlife taken in violation of state, federal, or non-U.S. law (including bald and golden eagles), resulting in a misdemeanor with up to one year in jail and fines. Further, there is an additional penalty for the taking of "big game" species. It is also illegal to have in one's possession any nonnative or exotic species.
Colorado Dog Fanciers v. City and County of Denver
The plaintiffs, dog owners and related canine and humane associations (dog owners), filed a complaint in the Denver District Court against the defendant, City and County of Denver (city), seeking both a declaratory judgment on the constitutionality of the "Pit Bulls Prohibited" ordinance, Denver, Colo., Rev.Mun.Code § 8-55 (1989), and injunctive relief to prevent enforcement. 

The dog owners in this case claim the ordinance is unconstitutional, violating their rights to procedural and substantive due process and equal protection, is unconstitutionally vague, and constitutes a taking of private property.
Detailed Discussion of Colorado Great Ape Laws Since 1994, Colorado’s Pet Animal Care and Facilities Act (PACFA) has banned the import, possession, sale, and transfer of apes. . However, the ban is somewhat limited and there is little state-level regulation of apes beyond that. Generally, it is illegal to import, possess, or sell apes for use as pets; but federally licensed exhibitors (like circuses, zoos, animal acts, and some wildlife sanctuaries), scientific research facilities, and disabled people can freely import, possess, buy, and sell those animals.The following discussion begins with a general overview of the various state statutes and regulations affecting Great Apes. It then analyzes the applicability of those laws to the possession and use of apes for specific purposes, including their possession as pets, for scientific research, for commercial purposes, and in sanctuaries. The discussion concludes with a compilation of local ordinances which govern the possession and use of apes within geographic subdivisions of the state.
Hartlee v. Hardey

Plaintiffs filed suit against a veterinarian and a number of police officers who were involved in their prosecution of animal cruelty. Plaintiffs Switf and Hatlee worked together on a Echo Valley Ranch where they provided care and boarding for horses. In February 2012, Officer Smith went to Echo Valley Ranch to conduct a welfare check on the horses. Officer Smith noticed that the horses seemed to be in poor condition, so he requested that a veternarian visis the ranch to inspect the horses. Dr. Olds, a local veterinarian, visited the ranch and wrote a report that suggested that the horses be seized due to their current state. Officer Smith initially served plaintiffs with a warning but after returning to the ranch and noticing that the horses’ condition had worsened, the horses were seized and plaintiffs were charged with animal cruelty. In this case, plaintiffs argued that the veterinarian had wrote the medical report for a “publicity stunt” and that this report influenced Officer’s Smith’s decision to seize the horses and charge plaintiffs with animal cruelty. The court ultimately found that the veterinarian’s report was not made as a “publicity stunt,” especially due to the fact that the report was filed privately and not made available to the public. Also, the court found that there was no evidence to suggest that the veterinarian and the officers were working with one another in a “conspiracy” to seize the horses and charge plaintiffs with animal cruelty.
Holcomb v. City and County of Denver


In this Colorado case, the defendant was convicted in the county court of keeping dogs in a residential zone in violation of zoning ordinance.  The question before the court was whether section 2-3(3)(a) provides ascertainable standards which can be constitutionally enforced by the zoning administrator.  The court held that the ordinance is sufficiently specific to pass constitutional muster.  The Court also held that the zoning ordinance relating to accessory uses allowed in residential zones provided sufficient guidelines for it to be constitutionally enforced by the zoning administrator and that the municipality had not delegated to the zoning administrator the authority to determine by regulation the number of dogs which may be kept in a residential zone as an accessory use. 
Legro v. Robinson


While participating in a bicycle race on Forest Service lands, plaintiff (Legro) was attacked seriously injured by defendants' (Robinsons') dogs. The Robinsons held a grazing permit from the Forest Service for the land where the injury occurred and the dogs were acting as predator control dogs there. On appeal, this court agreed with the lower court that the Robinsons were landowners for purposes of the Premises Liability Act (PLA) and this did in fact abrogate the plaintiffs' common law claims. However, as a matter of first impression, the court  determined that the PLA does not abrogate the statutory dog bite claim. As to the predator control dog exception, the court found that while the dogs were working as predator control dogs, the issue is whether the dogs were on property "under the control of" the Robinsons at the time. Under these facts, a grazing permit, without more, does not establish control for the predator dog exception of the dog bite law.
Lindauer v. LDB Drainlaying, Inc.

In this Colorado case, the owners of a thoroughbred racehorse brought a negligence action to recover for injuries to his horse against the corporation that  installed underground pipe on property leased by plaintiffs. The lower court entered judgment on a verdict awarding damages to plaintiffs. On appeal, this court held that the evidence of negligence and contributory negligence was sufficient for jury where defendant physically left an unfinished project for two months where the horse was injured. Defendant still owed a duty of care that it would have owed as contractor. However, plaintiffs were not entitled to damages for care and feeding of injured horse.
McCausland v. People
Action by the People of the State of Colorado against William J. McCausland.  From a judgement overruling defendant's motion to dismiss and finding him guilty of cruelty to animals, he brings error.  Affirmed.
Nonhuman Rts. Project, Inc. v. Cheyenne Mountain Zoological Soc'y This Colorado case involves the appeal of the dismissal of a habeas corpus proceeding. The appeal asked the Colorado Supreme Court to decide whether the liberty interests protected by the "great writ of habeas corpus" extend to nonhuman animals. Petitioner Nonhuman Rights Project, Inc. (“NRP”) contends that the district court erred in dismissing its habeas petition because the five elephants that are the subject of the petition, Missy, Kimba, Lucky, LouLou, and Jambo (“the elephants”), lacked standing to seek relief via the great writ. These elderly elephants live at the Cheyenne Mountain Zoo (“CMZ”) and where NRP asserts they were unlawfully confined. In support of this contention, NRP submitted affidavits from several animal biologists who stated that these intelligent and complex creatures are suffering from psychological disorders and stress from being in captivity. The Zoo countered with a motion to dismiss, arguing the elephants received extraordinary care and that the court lacked subject matter jurisdiction over the claim because the elephants do not have standing to seek habeas relief. After the district court granted the motion to dismiss, this court sought to determine whether habeas corpus relief extends to nonhuman animals. The court first looked at Colorado's statutory grant of authority for habeas relief. In doing so, the court found that the statute grants "any person" the ability to seek habeas relief from illegal confinement or restraint of liberty. While "person" is not defined in the law, the court found other statutory definitions that limit "person" to mean "human being." This definition is bolstered by the plain and ordinary meaning of the word "person." Since Colorado's law explicitly limits habeas corpus relief to "persons," the court was unpersuaded by NRP to expand the writ to animals based on common law interpretations. Further, the court noted that even if the statute did not say "person," it would still not be persuaded to expand the writ because no other jurisdiction has recognized "personhood" for nonhuman species, expansion would have "unintended consequences" for interactions between humans and animals, and there is no evidence the Colorado legislature ever intended to recognize animals as legal persons in the statute. This court affirmed the district court's finding that Colorado's writ of habeas corpus does not apply to nonhuman animals.

Pages