Results
Displaying 6591 - 6600 of 6638
| Title | Citation | Alternate Citation | Summary | Type |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 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 | |
| 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 |
| 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 |
| CT - Disaster - Evacuation of Animals During Disasters - Chapter 517. | C. G. S. A. § 28-1 | CT ST § 28-1 | In Connecticut, civil preparedness includes activities designed to minimize the effects upon the civilian population in the event of major disaster or emergency. Such measures include the nonmilitary evacuation of the civilian population, pets and service animals. | Statute |
| UK - Dog - Breeding of Dogs Act 1973 | 1973 c. 60 |
This Act establishes a regime of local authority licensing and inspection of dog breeding establishments. |
Statute | |
| Mitchell v. State | 118 So.3d 295 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2013) | 38 Fla. L. Weekly D1641, 2013 WL 3927676 |
The defendant in this case was convicted of animal cruelty for injuries his dog sustained after his dog bit him. Upon appeal, the court found that the prosecutor had erred by framing the argument in a manner that improperly shifted the burden of proof from whether the defendant had intentionally and maliciously inflicted injuries on the dog to whether the State's witnesses were lying. Since the court found this shift in burden was not harmless, the court reversed and remanded the defendant's conviction. |
Case |
| Mostek v. Genesee County Animal Control | Slip Copy, 2012 WL 683430 (E.D., Mich. 2012) |
Defendant officer removed a gravely-ill cat that needed veterinary care from Plaintiff's backyard. Plaintiff sued alleging Fourth Amendment claims pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff disclaimed ownership of the cat, thus her property rights were not violated by the seizure. Officer was shielded by the doctrine of qualified immunity, because animal control officers may enter property and remove animals that appear to be in danger. |
Case | |
| Dunn v. Attorney General | 474 Mass. 675, 54 N.E.3d 1 (2016) | Plaintiff and farmer James Dunn brought suit to challenge the attorney general’s certification of Massachusetts Question 3. Dunn was joined by anti-poverty activist Diane Sullivan. Both plaintiffs received funding from Protect the Harvest, a nonprofit that opposes farming restrictions, to pursue the lawsuit. Plaintiffs argued that Question 3’s ban on the production and the sale of products made from restrictively confined animals were unrelated questions. Plaintiffs also argued that the bans on confinement of egg lying hens, pregnant pigs, and calves for veal were separate issues on which voters may have varying opinions, so they should be voted on separately. They also argued that the ballot measure’s statement of purpose improperly contained an “argumentative” policy statement that taints the petition and unfairly sways public opinion. The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court held that the ballot measure was compliant with the state’s requirements and that the attorney general properly certified Question 3 for submission to the public. | Case | |
| OK - Hunting, remote - § 5-201. Means of taking wildlife--Exceptions--Fines and punishments | 29 Okl.St.Ann. § 5-201 | OK ST T. 29 § 5-201 | Oklahoma's Internet hunting ban is located in Subsection B and states that "[e]xcept as otherwise provided for in this section, no person shall hunt wildlife or exotic wildlife by computer-assisted remote control hunting." Violation incurs a fine of not less than Two Hundred Fifty Dollars ($250.00) nor more than Five Hundred Dollars ($500.00) or by imprisonment in the county jail not exceeding one (1) year, or by both the fine and imprisonment. In addition, the court may order that the hunting or fishing license and privileges of any person convicted of violating the provisions of subsection B or C of this section be revoked for a period of not less than one (1) year but not exceeding five (5) years. | Statute |
| CA - Cruelty - § 597.9. Cruelty to animals; persons convicted of specified misdemeanor and felony | West's Ann. Cal. Penal Code § 597.9 | CA PENAL § 597.9 | Under this California law, any person convicted of a misdemeanor violation of certain animal cruelty laws (Section 597, or Section 597a, 597b, 597h, 597j, 597s, or 597.1) and who, within five years after the conviction, owns, possesses, maintains, has custody of, resides with, or cares for any animal is guilty of a public offense, punishable by a fine of one thousand dollars ($1,000). Additionally, any person who has been convicted of a felony violation of subdivision (a) or (b) of Section 597, or Section 597b or 597.5, and who, within 10 years after the conviction, owns, possesses, maintains, has custody of, resides with, or cares for any animal is guilty of a public offense, punishable by a fine of one thousand dollars ($1,000). | Statute |