Results
| Title | Citation | Alternate Citation | Agency Citation | Summary | Type |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| MI - Transgenic and Nonnative Organisms - Chapter 324.Natural Resources and Environmental Protection Act | M.C.L.A. 324.41301 to 324.41305 | MI ST 324.41301 to 324.41305 | The following Natural Resources and Environmental Protection Act sections lists which transgenic and non-native organisms are either restricted or prohibited in the state of Michigan. In addition to listing a species as prohibited or restricted, the statute also grants authority to the Commission of Natural Resources (for all species except insects or plants) and to the Commission of Agriculture (for insect and plant species only) to add or delete an organism from either list. The statute also provides exceptions—with qualifications—to possessing a restricted or prohibited species; provisions in which a person can introduce a prohibited or restricted species; and circumstances in which a person is not considered to be in possession of a restricted or prohibited species. | Statute | |
| State v. Dye | 283 P.3d 1130 (Wash.App. Div. 1,2012) | 2012 WL 3641607 (Wash.App. Div. 1,2012) |
In this Washington case, Defendant Dye appeals his conviction for residential burglary. The victim in the case was an adult man with significant developmental disabilities. At trial, the State obtained permission to allow a dog named "Ellie" to sit at the victim's feet during testimony. On appeal, Dye contends that his right to a fair trial was compromised because the dog's presence improperly incited the jury's sympathy, encouraged the jury to infer victimhood, and gave Lare an incentive to testify for the prosecution. The court found no prejudice to defendant from the presence of the dog, especially in light of the jury instructions to ignore her. Affirmed. |
Case | |
| People v. Koogan | 256 A.D. 1078 (N.Y. App. Div. 1939) | 11 N.Y.S.2d 49 (N.Y. App. Div. 1939) |
Defendant was guilty of cruelty to animals for allowing a horse to be worked he knew was in poor condition. |
Case | |
| Northern Ireland - Animal Welfare - Welfare of Animals Act (Northern Ireland) 2011 | 2011 CHAPTER 16 | An Act establishing penalties for engaging in certain activities that are considered detrimental to animal welfare in Northern Ireland. Activities that constitute offences include: causing an animal unnecessary suffering, mutilating an animal’s body, docking a dog’s tail (with certain limited exceptions), administering a poisonous or injurious substance to an animal, and engaging in or attending an animal fight. Activities lawfully done under the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986, and the normal course of fishing, hunting and (hare) coursing are exempt from the 2011 Act. Hare coursing events have since been banned in separate legislation. | Statute | ||
| ND - Assistance Animals - Assistance Animal/Guide Dog Laws | NDCC 25-13-01 to 06 ; 47-16-07.5 - 7.6 | ND ST 25-13-01 to 06; 47-16-07.5 - 7.6 | The following statutes comprise the state's relevant assistance animal and guide dog laws. | Statute | |
| KS - Pet Sales - Chapter 47. Livestock and Domestic Animals. | K. S. A. 47-1701 to 1737 | KS ST 47-1701 to 1737 | The following statutes comprise Kansas' Pet Animal Act. The Act outlines the requirements for pet shop operator licensing and animal dealers. | Statute | |
| Com. v. Barnes | 427 Pa.Super. 326, 629 A.2d 123 (Pa.Super.,1993) |
In this case, the defendants argued that the police powers granted to a private entity, the Erie Humane Society, was an improper delegation of government authority. On appeal, the defendants’ asserted several arguments including a claim that Pennsylvania’s delegation of government authority is in violation of the Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution and the Pennsylvania Constitution The appeals court rejected each of defendants’ four arguments. Specifically, the court rejected defendants' assertion that the Erie Humane Society operates as "vigilantes," finding that the Society's actions are regulated by the Rules of Criminal Procedure with requirements of probable cause and the constraints of case law. |
Case | ||
| Dillon v. Greenbriar Digging Service | 919 So.2d 172 (Miss. 2005) |
In this Mississippi case, a horse owner brought negligence action against digging service when one of his horses was found dead near a trench dug by the service; the service refused to compensate owner for the value of his horse. The lower court found in favor of the digging service. On appeal, the court affirmed the lower court, finding that the digging service used reasonable care in digging and filling of horse owner's trench. |
Case | ||
| AR - Lien - § 18-48-212. Sale proceeds and payments | A.C.A. § 18-48-212 | AR ST § 18-48-212 | All sales of livestock at public auction shall be for cash. The proceeds of the sale, after payments underlying debts, if any, shall, if the owners are absent or unknown, be deposited with the treasurer of the county where the sale takes place. These net proceeds shall be paid to the persons entitled to them when they properly establish ownership in, or lien upon, the livestock, either by claim of title or by claim of valid lien. | Statute | |
| MN - Disaster Planning - Minnesota Emergency Operations Plan (MEOP) | Minnesota Emergency Operations Plan (2015) | The Minnesota Emergency Operations Plan contains references to both household pets and service animals. The plan defines "household pet" as "[a] domesticated animal, such as a dog, cat, bird, rodent (including a rabbit), or turtle that is traditionally kept in the home for pleasure rather than for commercial purposes and can travel in commercial carriers and be housed in temporary facilities. Household pets do not include reptiles (except turtles), amphibians, fish, insects/arachnids, farm animals (including horses), and animals kept for racing purposes." | Administrative |