Results
Displaying 6201 - 6210 of 6822
| Title | Citation | Alternate Citation | Agency Citation | Summary | Type |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| CA - Transport - § 597a. Cruelty to animals; transportation; care of animals by arresting officer; expense | West's Ann. Cal. Penal Code § 597a | CA PENAL § 597a | This statute makes it a misdemeanor for anyone to carry a domestic animal in a vehicle in a cruel manner, or knowingly and willfully authorizes or permits it to be subjected to unnecessary torture, suffering, or cruelty of any kind. If an officer takes a defendant into custody, the officer must take charge of such vehicle and its contents. A lien is placed on them for any necessary expenses incurred for their care, which must be paid before they can be recovered. | Statute | |
| Canada - British Columbia - Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act | R.S.B.C. 1996, c. 372, s. 1 - 26(4) | This set of British Columbia, Canada laws establishes the guidelines for establishment of individual chapters of The British Columbia Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals. The laws allow these societies to relieve animals in "distress" as defined by law. A person who wilfully or knowingly interferes with or obstructs a person in the discharge of duties or the exercise of powers under this Act commits an offence punishable by a fine of not more than $2000 or to imprisonment for not more than 6 months, or to both. | Statute | ||
| Giaconia v. Delaware County Soc. for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals | Slip Copy, 2008 WL 4442632 (E.D.Pa.) |
Plaintiff brought various claims against Defendants after Plaintiff’s cat was euthanized prior to the standard 72 hour waiting period. On Defendants’ motion to dismiss, the United States District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania found that Defendants were not acting under color of law. Because any and all claims for which the Court had original jurisdiction were being dismissed, the Court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s State law claims. |
Case | ||
| Sentence T-119/98, 1998- Colombia | Sentencia T-119/98 | In this case, the plaintiff’s neighbor filed a police complaint against the plaintiff to force him to control his dogs’ barking, arguing that the dogs disturbed the tranquility and privacy to which the neighbor was entitled. The police inspected the plaintiff’s property, and the police required that he better control his dogs’ volume, or else have the dogs removed. The plaintiff owned a farm and a large distance separated his property from the neighbor’s. The plaintiff filed this tutela action to protect his rights to life, equality, and due process, which he claimed were violated via the authorities’ and court’s actions and order to remove the dogs. The parties argued topics such as res judicata, the parties’ constitutional rights, and the dogs’ rights to bark. The court discussed proper and considerate keeping of the dogs, what is considered “socially tolerable,” and the dogs’ natural functions. All actions aimed at the plaintiff were ceased and the case was terminated. | Case | ||
| Chile - Transport, animals - Decreto 30 | Decreto 30 | This "Decreto" or executive order contains welfare standards for animals during transport. It is an indirect result of the agreement DS N° 28/2003 between Chile and the European Union together with decretos 28, and 29, 2013. Under this decreto, cattle cannot be transported in conditions that could cause unnecessary pain and suffering. However, there are no limitations regarding the number of animals that can be loaded, and animals can be transported without food, water, and rest for up to 24 hours. if it is impossible to unload the animals, the carrier must ensure that animals are provided food and water. | Statute | ||
| Brown v. Muhlenberg Tp. | 269 F.3d 205 (3rd Cir. 2001) |
Pet owners were unreasonably deprived of their Fourth Amendment rights to their pet by police officer. Pennsylvania Court would recognize a claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress based upon the killing of a pet. |
Case | ||
| Franciscus v. Sevdik | 2016 PA Super 52 (Feb. 29, 2016) | 2016 WL 787905 | Five-year-old Femina asked the dog walker, Ms. Dailey, if she could pet Julius, the pit bull. When she bent over to do so, the dog jumped up and bit her on the chin. The Plaintiffs, Mr. and Mrs. Franciscus commenced this negligence action to recover damages for injuries sustained by their daughter, Femina. They filed the action against Mr. Sevdik, the owner of the dog, Ms. Dailey, the dog walker, and Mr. Steigerwald, the individual owner and operator of Fetch Pet Care of West Hills/South Hills. The Superior Court of Pennsylvania held that summary judgment granted by the trial court in favor of Ms. Dailey and Fetch Pet Care was improper. The Court reasoned that the dog was entrusted to these Defendants by Mr. Sevdik and the dog was in their control when the injury occurred. Since the Defendants knew the dog jumped on people, was to be muzzled when walked, and was not to be walked along routes where there were people, specifically children and other dogs, they had a duty to use reasonable care to protect others from harm while the dog was in their control. While the court stated it did not need to reach the issue of whether the trial court erred in refusing refusing to take judicial notice of dangerous propensities of pit bulls, it noted that Pennsylvania law does not recognize a presumption that pit bulls as a breed are dangerous or have dangerous propensities. The order was vacated and the case was remanded. | Case | |
| European Union - Food Production - Regulations for Marketing Eggs | Official Journal L 2/1 , 05/01/2001 | No 5/2001 | This European Union regulation amends No 1907/90 of the marketing standards for eggs by making it compulsory to indicate the farming method on eggs. | Administrative | |
| CT - Municipalities - Power to Regulate | C. G. S. A. § 7-148 | CT ST § 7-148 | This Connecticut statute allows municipalities to prohibit dogs running at large and to prevet animal cruelty; this statute also prohibts municipalities from adopting breed specific legislation. | Statute | |
| European Convention for the Protection of Pet Animals | A Council of Europe Convention to promote the welfare of pet animals. | Treaty |