Hayden Act

Last updated
Hayden Act
Seal of California.svg
California State Legislature
Full nameAn act to amend Sections 1815, 1816, 1834, 1845, 1846, 1847, and 2080 of, and to add Section 1834.4 to, the Civil Code, to amend Sections 31108, 31752, and 32001 of, to add Sections 17005, 17006, 31752.5, 31753, and 32003 to, and to add, repeal, and add Section 31754 of, the Food and Agricultural Code, and to amend Section 597.1 of, and to add Section 599d to, the Penal Code, relating to stray animals.
IntroducedFebruary 18, 1998
Assembly votedAugust 26, 1998 (72-3)
Senate votedAugust 30, 1998 (22-9)
Signed into lawSeptember 22, 1998
Sponsor(s) Tom Hayden
Governor Pete Wilson
BillSB 1785
Website http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/97-98/bill/sen/sb_1751-1800/sb_1785_bill_19980923_chaptered.html
Status: Partly in force
(Some parts of the Act were suspended due to financial concerns.)

The Hayden Act, introduced by California Senator Tom Hayden as Senate Bill 1785 on February 18, 1998, amended California Law as it applies to companion animals. [1]

Contents

Under the then-existing law, dogs or cats impounded by public pounds or shelters could be killed after 72 hours of being impounded. [1] The Hayden Act, effective July 1, 1999, expanded this minimum impound time to 4 or 6 business days, as specified, and required that the animal be released to a nonprofit animal rescue or adoption organization in certain circumstances, subject to specified exceptions. [1]

Authorship and ratification

Along with Hayden, law professor in animal law and nonprofit law Taimie Bryant of UCLA School of Law is also credited with writing the majority of the laws. The bill became law after then Governor Pete Wilson signed it on September 22, 1998. [2]

Lawsuits

Lock v. Kern County, California

In 2004, the first lawsuit filed under the Hayden Act, Petitioner Patricia Lock, represented by California attorney, and Animal Rights and Hayden Act expert, Kate Neiswender, sought an injunction prohibiting Kern County, California from violating the act by euthanizing companion animals prior to the expiration of the holding period and engaging in other prohibited conduct.

Johnson v. Kings County, California

In 2007, a second lawsuit was filed under the Hayden Act by Petitioner Kara Johnson, represented by California attorney,Kate Neiswender. The case began with a shelter audit that found that the county-run animal control was not keeping accurate records, scanning for microchips, providing veterinary care to animals, nor following the minimum hold time of the Hayden Act. The lawsuit later resolved to the satisfaction of all parties.

Jacie Conaway v. San Bernardino County, California

In 2007, Petitioner Jacie Conaway, represented by California attorney, and Animal Rights and Hayden Act expert, Okorie Okorocha, filed a similar action against San Bernardino County, California. The lawsuit later resolved to the satisfaction of all parties.They withdrew the lawsuit after they reviewed the county's response. Resolution was obtained by the petitioner withdrawing the complaint and litigation filed against the County.

Rich Mc Lellan, M.D. v. Mendocino County, California

In 2007, Rich Mc Lellan, M.D., the President of the California Chapter of the League of Humane Voters, represented by California attorney, and Animal Rights and Hayden Act expert, Okorie Okorocha [3] filed an action against Mendocino County, California titled Mc Lellan v. County of Mendocino [4] to have a statute enacted by the County, known as "Sec. 10.24.010 Voluntary Surrender of Animal for Euthanasia: Not Impoundment" which contradicted the Hayden Act, and allowed for the unlawful euthanization of companion animals, declared invalid by the Mendocino County, California Court. The Mendocino County, California County Council repealed the statute before the case went to trial: [5]

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS – SUMMARY/ACTION MINUTES – JUNE 19, 2007 PAGE 454 AGENDA ITEM NO. 10A – INTRODUCTION AND WAIVE THE READING OF AN ORDINANCE REPEALING MENDOCINO COUNTY CODE SECTION 10.24.010 IN ITS ENTIRETY – COUNTY COUNSEL Presenter/s: Ms. Jeanine B. Nadel, County Counsel, introduced that matter, noting that this ordinance section directly contradicts State law (Food and Agricultural Code Sections), recommending it be repealed in its entirety. Board Action: Upon motion by Supervisor Delbar, seconded by Supervisor Colfax, and carried (4, with Supervisor Wattenburger absent); IT IS ORDERED that the Board of Supervisors introduces and waives the reading of the ordinance repealing Mendocino County Code Section 10.24.010 in its entirety

Related Research Articles

Price gouging Raising of prices to an unreasonably high level after a demand or supply shock

Price gouging occurs when a seller increases the prices of goods, services, or commodities to a level much higher than is considered reasonable or fair. Usually, this event occurs after a demand or supply shock. Common examples include price increases of basic necessities after natural disasters. In precise legal usage, it is the name of a crime that applies in some jurisdictions of the United States during civil emergencies. In less precise usage, it can refer either to prices obtained by practices inconsistent with a competitive free market or to windfall profits. Price gouging may be considered exploitative and unethical. Price gouging became highly prevalent in news media in the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic, when state price gouging regulations went into effect due to the national emergency. The rise in public discourse was associated with increased shortages related to the COVID-19 pandemic.

California State Route 224 Former state highway in California

State Route 224 was a state highway in the U.S. state of California that served as a spur route in Santa Barbara County from U.S. Route 101 in Carpinteria to Carpinteria State Beach.

Code of Virginia

The Code of Virginia is the statutory law of the U.S. state of Virginia, and consists of the codified legislation of the Virginia General Assembly. The 1950 Code of Virginia is the revision currently in force. The previous official versions were the Codes of 1819, 1849, 1887, and 1919, though other compilations had been printed privately as early as 1733, and other editions have been issued that were not designated full revisions of the code.

Peninsula Humane Society

The Peninsula Humane Society & SPCA (PHS/SPCA) is one of the largest humane organizations in the United States. Located in San Mateo County, California, it is a private non-profit charitable organization. It is an animal rescue, rehabilitation and adoption operation with two locations. The Tom and Annette Lantos Center for Compassion, where adoptable animals are housed, is in the city of Burlingame and the older physical plant, which serves as the intake shelter, is located at Coyote Point in the city of San Mateo. PHS/SPCA has been responsible for considerable progress in the California Legislature with new humane laws in the state, especially since the late 1970s. PHS/SPCA has been characterized as a progressive and innovative humane organization.

In the common law legal system, an expungement proceeding is a type of lawsuit in which a first time offender of a prior criminal conviction seeks that the records of that earlier process be sealed or destroyed, making the records nonexistent or unavailable to the general public. If successful, the records are said to be "expunged". Black's Law Dictionary defines "expungement of record" as the "Process by which record of criminal conviction is destroyed or sealed from the state or Federal repository." While expungement deals with an underlying criminal record, it is a civil action in which the subject is the petitioner or plaintiff asking a court to declare that the records be expunged.

Title 1 of the United States Code outlines the general provisions of the United States Code.

Law of California Overview of the law of the U.S. state of California

The law of California consists of several levels, including constitutional, statutory, and regulatory law, as well as case law. The California Codes form the general statutory law, and most state agency regulations are available in the California Code of Regulations.

Proposition 83 of 2006 was a statute enacted by 70% of California voters on November 7, 2006, authored by State Senator George Runner and State Assemblywoman Sharon Runner. It was proposed by means of the initiative process as a version of the Jessica's Law proposals that had been considered in other states.

The government of Virginia combines the Executive, Legislative and Judicial branches of authority in the Commonwealth of Virginia. The current Governor of Virginia is Glenn Youngkin. The State Capitol building in Richmond was designed by Thomas Jefferson, and the cornerstone was laid by Governor Patrick Henry in 1785. Virginia currently functions under the 1971 Constitution of Virginia. It is the Commonwealth's seventh constitution. Under the Constitution, the government is composed of three branches, the legislative, the executive and the judicial.

California Labor Code Collection of Californian civil law statutes

The California Labor Code, more formally known as "the Labor Code", is a collection of civil law statutes for the State of California. The code is made up of statutes which govern the general obligations and rights of persons within the jurisdiction of the State of California. The stated goal of the Department of Industrial Relations is to promote and develop the welfare of the wage earners of California, to improve their working conditions and to advance their opportunities for profitable employment."

California Public Records Act Freedom-of-information law in California, a U.S. state

The California Public Records Act was a law passed by the California State Legislature and signed by then-governor Ronald Reagan in 1968 requiring inspection or disclosure of governmental records to the public upon request, unless exempted by law.

California Code of Civil Procedure Codification of the law of civil procedure in the U.S. state of California

The California Code of Civil Procedure is a California code enacted by the California State Legislature in March 1872 as the general codification of the law of civil procedure in the U.S. state of California, along with the three other original Codes. It contains most California statutes that govern the filing and litigation of lawsuits in the Superior Courts of California, as well as legal notices that must be given in a variety of circumstances. It also includes statutes of limitations that control the period of time during which a lawsuit must be commenced. The Code originally governed the legal profession, but those were later moved to the Business and Professions Code.

LGBT rights in Missouri

Lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer (LGBTQ) persons in the U.S. state of Missouri as of late have most of the same legal rights as non-LGBT persons have, but nonetheless face some legal challenges not experienced by other residents throughout the state, excluding St. Louis, Kansas City, and Columbia. Same-sex sexual activity is legal in Missouri.

The Housing Accountability Act (HAA) is a California state law designed to promote infill development by speeding housing approvals. The Act was passed in 1982 in recognition that "the lack of housing, including emergency shelter, is a critical statewide problem," and has also been referred to as "the anti-NIMBY law." It empowers the State of California to limit the ability of local government to restrict the development of new housing. The Act was strengthened by its amendment in 2017.

Pierson v. Ray, 386 U.S. 547 (1967), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court first introduced the justification for qualified immunity for police officers from being sued for civil rights violations under Section 1983, by arguing that "[a] policeman's lot is not so unhappy that he must choose between being charged with dereliction of duty if he does not arrest when he had probable cause, and being mulcted in damages if he does."

The Superior Court of California, County of Tehama, also known as the Tehama County Superior Court or Tehama Superior Court, is the branch of the California superior court with jurisdiction over Tehama County.

Special motion to strike Legal motion intended to stop SLAPP lawsuits

The special motion to strike is a motion authorized by the California Code of Civil Procedure intended to stop strategic lawsuits against public participation (SLAPPs). They were created in 1992 with the purpose of encouraging participation in matters of public significance. The motion allows a litigant to strike a complaint when it arises from conduct in furtherance of the moving party's rights to petition or free speech in connection with a public issue. If the moving party prevails, they are entitled to attorney's fees by right. The motion is codified in section 425.16 of the Code. More than 300 published court opinions have interpreted and applied California's anti-SLAPP law. Because the right to file a special motion to strike is substantive immunity to suit, rather than a merely procedural right, federal courts apply the law to state law claims they hear under diversity jurisdiction.

Glenn County Superior Court Branch of California superior court with jurisdiction over Glenn Country

The Superior Court of California, County of Glenn, also known as the Glenn County Superior Court or Glenn Superior Court, is the branch of the California superior court with jurisdiction over Glenn County.

References

  1. 1 2 3 "BILL NUMBER: SB 1785 CHAPTERED BILL TEXT" (PDF). California State Senate . Retrieved 22 March 2013.
  2. California State Assembly. "An act to amend Sections 1814, 1816, 1834, 1845, 1846, 1847, and 2080 of, and to add Section 1834.4 to, the Civil Code, to amend Sections 31108, 31752, and 32001 of, to add Sections 17005, 17006, 31752.5, 31753, and 32003 to, and to add, repeal, and add Section 31754 of, the Food and Agricultural Code, and to amend Section 597.1 of, and to add Section 599d to, the Penal Code, relating to stray animals". 1997–1998 Session of the Legislature. Statutes of California. State of California. Ch. 752 p. 4903–4917.
  3. "San Francisco Bay Guardian - Looking for a Guardian article?". Sfbg.com. Retrieved 1 June 2019.
  4. "Mendocino Lawsuit". Expertforensicreview.com. 9 December 2017. Retrieved 1 June 2019.
  5. "MENDOCINO COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS" (PDF). Co.mendocino.ca.us. Retrieved 22 March 2013.