California Veterinary Medical Association v. City of West Hollywood
California Court of Appeal
152 Cal. App. 4th 536, 61 Cal. Rptr. 3d 318 (2007)
- Written by Haley Gintis, JD
Facts
In 2003, the City of West Hollywood (defendant) passed an ordinance prohibiting an individual from performing an animal-declawing procedure or from seeking a declawing procedure for his animal. The city passed the ordinance after concluding that declawing an animal was inhumane. The California Veterinary Medical Association (plaintiff) sued the city on the ground that the ordinance was preempted by the state’s Veterinary Medical Practice Act (veterinary act) and Section 460 of the Business and Professions Code. The veterinary act established the Veterinary Medical Board and regulated the practice and licensing of veterinary medicine. The California legislature specified that the veterinary act preempted all other cleanliness and sanitary requirements. Section 460 prohibited a city from passing an ordinance forbidding a licensed professional from engaging in his profession. In response to the declawing ordinance, the Department of Consumer Affairs, which regulated professional licensing within the state, issued an opinion that the ordinance was preempted by the veterinary act and Section 460. The trial court also concluded that the declawing ordinance was preempted, and it enjoined the city from enforcing the ordinance. The city appealed.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Perluss, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 790,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,200 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.