167.305
Legislative findings.
The Legislative Assembly finds and declares that:
(1) Animals are
sentient beings capable of experiencing pain, stress and fear;
(2) Animals
should be cared for in ways that minimize pain, stress, fear and suffering;
(3) The suffering
of animals can be mitigated by expediting the disposition of abused animals
that would otherwise languish in cages while their defendant owners await
trial;
(4) The suffering
of animals at the hands of unlicensed animal rescue organizations that are
unable to provide sufficient food and care for the animals can be reduced by
requiring such organizations to comply with regulations;
(5) The State of
Oregon has an interest in facilitating the mitigation of costs of care incurred
by a government agency, a humane investigation agency or its agent or a person
that provides treatment for impounded animals;
(6) A government
agency, a humane investigation agency or its agent or a person that provides
care and treatment for impounded or seized animals:
(a) Has an
interest in mitigating the costs of the care and treatment in order to ensure
the swift and thorough rehabilitation of the animals; and
(b) May mitigate
the costs of the care and treatment through funding that is separate from, and
in addition to, any recovery of reasonable costs that a court orders a
defendant to pay while a forfeiture proceeding is pending or subsequent to a
conviction;
(7) Use of
preconviction civil remedies is not an affront to the presumption of innocence;
and
(8) Amendments to
current law are needed to ensure that interested parties are afforded adequate
notice and an opportunity to be heard and thus cannot unduly delay or impede
animal lien foreclosure and preconviction forfeiture processes through
unfounded due process claims. [2013 c.719 §1; 2017 c.677 §1]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
7
cases (
1 in the last 5 years), 2014–2022 · leading case:
State v. Newcomb, 375 P.3d 434 (Or. 2016).
State v. Newcomb, 375 P.3d 434 (Or. 2016).
· cites it 2× “]” Fessenden/Dicke, 355 Or at 768 (quoting ORS 167.305(1)). 10 To be sure, the protection given to animals under Oregon law does not place them on a par with humans.”
State v. Fessenden / Dicke, 333 P.3d 278 (Or. 2014).
· cites it 3× “7 We recognize that ORS 167.305 was enacted after defendants’ convictions; it therefore has no effect on defendants’ legal position.”
State v. Crow, 429 P.3d 1053 (Or. Ct. App. 2018).
· cites it 5× “332(1)(a) *92 protects animals from experiencing pain, stress, and fear by prohibiting a person convicted of certain crimes against animals from possessing domestic animals for five years following entry of the conviction.”
State/Klamath Cnty. v. Hershey, 466 P.3d 987 (Or. Ct. App. 2020).
· cites it 5× “10 At that time, it enacted ORS 167.305, which “finds and declares” that: 10 In 2013, the legislature amended eight animal welfare-related statutes in Senate Bill (SB) 6.”
Just. v. Vercher, 518 P.3d 131 (Or. Ct. App. 2022).
· cites it 3× “Mosiman further contends that such a holding would be limited, because it would apply only to those animals who must be afforded minimum care under Oregon’s animal welfare statutes, ORS 167.305 to 167.390. We first address Mosiman’s authority to sue on behalf of the named…”
State v. Newcomb (Or. 2016).
· cites it 2× “]” Fessenden/Dicke, 355 Or at 768 (quoting ORS 167.305(1)).10 To be sure, the protection given to ani- mals under Oregon law does not place them on a par with humans.”
State v. Fessenden / Dicke (Or. 2014).
· cites it 3× “Domestic animals, more colloquially known as pets, receive special consideration 7 We recognize that ORS 167.305 was enacted after defendants’ convictions; it therefore has no effect on defendants’ legal position.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 167.305(1) — 6 cases
State v. Newcomb, 375 P.3d 434 (Or. 2016).
“]” Fessenden/Dicke, 355 Or at 768 (quoting ORS 167.305(1)). 10 To be sure, the protection given to animals under Oregon law does not place them on a par with humans.”
State v. Fessenden / Dicke, 333 P.3d 278 (Or. 2014).
“7 We recognize that ORS 167.305 was enacted after defendants’ convictions; it therefore has no effect on defendants’ legal position.”
State v. Crow, 429 P.3d 1053 (Or. Ct. App. 2018).
“332(1)(a) *92 protects animals from experiencing pain, stress, and fear by prohibiting a person convicted of certain crimes against animals from possessing domestic animals for five years following entry of the conviction.”
Just. v. Vercher, 518 P.3d 131 (Or. Ct. App. 2022).
“Mosiman further contends that such a holding would be limited, because it would apply only to those animals who must be afforded minimum care under Oregon’s animal welfare statutes, ORS 167.305 to 167.390. We first address Mosiman’s authority to sue on behalf of the named…”
State v. Newcomb (Or. 2016).
“]” Fessenden/Dicke, 355 Or at 768 (quoting ORS 167.305(1)).10 To be sure, the protection given to ani- mals under Oregon law does not place them on a par with humans.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 167.305(2) — 2 cases
State v. Crow, 429 P.3d 1053 (Or. Ct. App. 2018).
“332(1)(a) *92 protects animals from experiencing pain, stress, and fear by prohibiting a person convicted of certain crimes against animals from possessing domestic animals for five years following entry of the conviction.”
Just. v. Vercher, 518 P.3d 131 (Or. Ct. App. 2022).
“Mosiman further contends that such a holding would be limited, because it would apply only to those animals who must be afforded minimum care under Oregon’s animal welfare statutes, ORS 167.305 to 167.390. We first address Mosiman’s authority to sue on behalf of the named…”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 167.305(3) — 1 case
State/Klamath Cnty. v. Hershey, 466 P.3d 987 (Or. Ct. App. 2020).
“10 At that time, it enacted ORS 167.305, which “finds and declares” that: 10 In 2013, the legislature amended eight animal welfare-related statutes in Senate Bill (SB) 6.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.