United States

Displaying 3941 - 3950 of 4784
Titlesort ascending Summary
Connecticut General Statutes: Chapter 331: Section 6367 Section 6367 of Chapter 329 from the 1918 General Laws of Connecticut covers the transportation of wild animals.  Specifically, the statute establishes the duty of care that must be given to the public when transporting a wild animal.
Connecticut General Statutes 1918: Chapter 96: Sections 1879-1886 Sections 1879-1886 of Chapter 96 from the 1918 General Laws of Connecticut covers in general the Humane Society for Connecticut. Specifically, the sections cover the following topics: the powers of an agent from the society, the definition of an animal, and funding of the society.
Connecticut General Statutes 1918: Chapter 337: Section 6546 Section 6546 of Chapter 337 from the 1918 General Laws of Connecticut covers jurisdiction and powers of courts. Specifically, the statute states the power of the court to issue search warrants for animal cruelty.
Connecticut General Statutes 1918: Chapter 329: Section 6268 Section 6268 of Chapter 329 from the 1918 General Laws of Connecticut covers the unlawful injury to certain property of another.  Specifically, the statute states the punishment for hurting, maiming, poisoning anther's cattle, ox, horse, and mule.
Connecticut General Statutes 1902: Sections 2807-2816 The 1902 General Statutes of Connecticut sections 2807-2816 cover the following topics: definition of an animal, powers of an agent from humane society, and funding of the humane society.
Concerned Dog Owners of California v. City of Los Angeles


Dog owners mounted a constitutional challenge to a Los Angeles municipal ordinance that required all dogs and cats within the city to be sterilized. The Court of Appeal held that the ordinance did not violate the owners’ freedom of association rights, free speech rights. or equal protection rights. The court held that it was not unconstitutionally vague, was not outside of the city's police powers, did not vest unfettered discretion in city officials, did not constitute an unconstitutional prior restraint or an unconstitutional taking. Finally, the law did not violate individual liberties under the California Constitution.
Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations Topic Area
COMPANION ANIMAL
Community Cats: Changing the Legal Paradigm for the Management of So-Called “Pests” Recognizing that the science, policy, and law involving the different animal “pests” are unique, the approach to changing the traditional paradigm is largely the same. Although the debate continues surrounding free-roaming cats, the approach of cat advocates to turn the tide away from deeply entrenched lethal methods of animal control provides an interesting and useful case study on how to alter the political, scientific, and legal paradigm in favor of respecting animal life for all animals deemed “pests.”
Commonwealth v. Whitson This case involves an appeal of an animal cruelty conviction after defendant repeatedly stabbed a dog named Smokey, a three-year old pit bull. The incident in question occurred on a street outside of defendant's barber shop. Smokey was on-leash walking with his owner when an unleashed smaller dog ran at Smokey and began biting his ankles. Smokey responded playfully, not aggressively. The defendant responded to calls of assistance from the smaller dog's owner and helped separate the dogs. After this, the defendant returned briefly to his barbershop and came back with a knife that he used to repeatedly stab Smokey with while he restrained the dog with his other arm. The police eventually responded and defendant was taken to the hospital for a laceration on his hand where he yelled, "I'm glad I killed the [expletive] dog." Smokey survived the attack and defendant was charged and convicted. On appeal, defendant raised several arguments challenging the verdict. In particular, the defendant challenges the sufficiency of the evidence, arguing that he stabbed Smokey repeatedly to release the dog from biting his hand. The appellate court found that no defense witnesses testified that Smokey bit defendant and the no medical records corroborated defendant's version of events. Defendant also argued that the judged erred in denying his motion in limine regarding Smokey prior and subsequent "bad acts," which, defendant claimed, were relevant to the issue of Smokey as the initial aggressor. This court found that the proffered evidence of bad acts was inadmissible hearsay and the acts subsequent to Smokey's stabbing occurred too remotely to have any probative value. Finally, the court found no substantial risk of a miscarriage of justice where the judge failed to give a sua sponte necessity defense. The judgment was affirmed.

Pages