Results
Displaying 31 - 40 of 6637
| Title | Citation | Alternate Citation | Summary | Type |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| UT - Hunting - § 23-20-29. Interference with hunting prohibited--Action to recover damages--Exceptions | U.C.A. 1953 § 23A-5-321 - 322 (formerly U.C.A. 1953 § 23-20-29, 23-20-29.5) | UT ST § 23A-5-321 - 322 (formerly UT ST § 23-20-29, 23-20-29.5) | This section reflects Utah's hunter harassment provisions. A person is guilty of a class B misdemeanor who intentionally interferes with the right of a person, licensed and legally hunting, to take wildlife by driving, harassing, or intentionally disturbing any species of wildlife for the purpose of disrupting a legal hunt, trapping, or predator control. A person adversely affected, or the state, may bring a civil action for damages resulting from the violation or a seek a restraining order. This section does not apply to incidental interference with a hunt caused by lawful activities including, but not limited to, ranching, mining, and recreation. | Statute |
| Night monkey poking out of a soiled hideout | Slideshow Images | |||
| NY - Disaster - Article 2-B. State and Local Natural and Man-Made Disaster Preparedness. Agriculture and Markets Law. | McKinney's Executive Law § 22, 23; McKinney's Agriculture and Markets Law § 410 - 411; McKinney's Public Authorities Law § 1264-a; McK.Unconsol.Laws § 6408-e | NY EXEC § 22, 23; NY AGRI & MKTS § 410 | In New York, disaster emergency plans must include utilization and coordination of programs to assist individuals with household pets and service animals. Particular emphasis must be on evacuation, shelter and transportation options following a disaster. | Statute |
| Hayes v. State | 518 S.W.3d 585 (Tex. App. 2017) | 2017 WL 1193845 (Tex. App. Mar. 31, 2017) | Defendant appeals an order with the Henderson County Sheriff's Office to destroy his dogs under Chapter 822 of the Texas Health and Safety Code. More specifically, defendant claims reversible error after he was denied a jury trial. Defendant's three dogs were seized after they attacked an individual riding a bicycle in front of defendant's residence. After a hearing, the dogs were found to be dangerous pursuant to Section 822.041 related to dogs causing serious bodily injury to a person. The judge then ordered the dogs to be humanely destroyed. Hayes appealed the order and requested a jury trial, which was objected to by the Henderson County Attorney's Office and sustained by the court. The dogs were found to be dangerous at a bench trial and ordered humanely euthanized, while defendant was ordered to pay $2,780 to the county. On appeal, defendant argues the county court erred in removing his case from the jury trial docket. The court now considers two questions: "(1) whether the owner of a dog ordered to be humanely destroyed by a justice, county, or municipal court judge, pursuant to Chapter 822, subchapter A, of the Texas Health and Safety Code, has the right to appeal such order; and (2) if an appeal is allowed, whether a jury can be requested to hear the de novo appeal." The court here declined to adopt the state's interpretation that the statute's silence as to a right of appeal indicates that the legislature eliminated that right. In fact, the court observed Subchapter A of Chapter 822 dealing with less serious "dangerous dogs," allows a party to appeal a dangerous dog finding. The court found it would be inconsistent that the more severe Subchapter D denies an appeal of right where the less severe subchapter grants it, especially where a forfeiture of property occurs (i.e., dogs). As to the right to jury trial, the court found Chapter 822 silent on that issue. However, the court found the order for seizure and destruction of defendant's "special personal property" guaranteed him a trial by jury under Article I of the Texas Constitution. The trial court's Final Order was reversed and the case was remanded to county court. | Case |
| IE - Cruelty - Protection of Animals, 1911 | Protection of Animals Act, 1911 | This Ireland law makes it illegal for a person to cause any animal “unnecessary suffering.” The act outlines all of the ways a person can be guilty of causing an animal harm including: beating, kicking, over-loading, torturing, and poisoning. If a person is found guilty under the act, the court has the power to take ownership of the animal and order the guilty party to pay any damages that resulted from the harm. | Statute | |
| Church of the Lukumi Babalu Aye, Inc. v. City of Hialeah | 508 U.S. 520 (1993) | 113 S.Ct. 2217 |
Local ordinance prohibiting animal sacrifices under the guise of an anti-cruelty concern was an unconstitutional infringement on church's First Amendment rights because (1) ordinances were not neutral; (2) ordinances were not of general applicability; and (3) governmental interest assertedly advanced by the ordinances did not justify the targeting of religious activity. |
Case |
| Hulsizer v. Labor Day Committee, Inc. | 734 A.2d 848 (Pa.,1999) | 557 Pa. 467 (Pa.,1999) |
This Pennsylvania case involves an appeal by allowance from orders of Superior Court which affirmed an order of the Court of Common Pleas of Schuylkill County and imposed counsel fees and costs upon the appellants, Clayton Hulsizer and the Pennsylvania Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (PSPCA). Hulsizer, an agent of the PSPCA, filed this action in equity seeking injunctive and declaratory relief against the appellee, Labor Day Committee, Inc., for their role in conducting an annual pigeon shoot. Hulsizer sought to have appellee enjoined from holding the shoot, alleging that it violates the cruelty to animals statute. At issue is whether Hulsizer has standing to bring an enforcement action in Schuylkill County. This court found no inconsistency in reading Section 501 and the HSPOEA (Humane Society Police Officer Enforcement Act) together as statutes that are in pari materia. Since the HSPOEA does not limit the jurisdiction of humane society police officers by requiring them to apply separately to the courts of common pleas in every county in Pennsylvania, the officer had standing to bring an enforcement action. The lower court's orders were reversed.
|
Case |
| Boulahanis v. Prevo's Family Market, Inc. | 230 Mich.App. 131 (1998) | 583 N.W.2d 509 (Mich.App.,1998) | Michigan Court of Appeals affirmed that the Federal Meat Inspection Act prevents states from adding or modifying federal requirements on meat producers. Claims that purchased meat products are adulterated must be based on federal standards, not Michigan standards. The United States Department of Agriculture elected not to address E. coli contamination, thus Michigan may not impose liability on manufacturers for not addressing possible E. coli contamination. | Case |
| RI - Humane Slaughter - Chapter 17. Humane Slaughter of Livestock | Gen. Laws, 1956, § 4-17-1 to 7 | RI ST § 4-17-1 to 7 | This section comprises Rhode Island's humane slaughter provisions. It begins first by declaring it to be the policy of the state that the slaughter of all livestock and the handling of livestock, in connection with slaughter, be carried out only by humane methods. A "humane method" is defined as a method through which the animal is rendered insensible to pain by mechanical, electrical, chemical or other means that is rapid and effective before being shackled, hoisted, thrown, cast, or cut; or a method in accordance with the ritual requirements of the Jewish faith or any other religious faith through which the animal suffers loss of consciousness by anemia of the brain. Any person who violates any provision of this chapter shall, upon conviction, be punished by a fine of not more than five hundred ($500) dollars, or by imprisonment for not more than one year. | Statute |
| Constitución Política de la Ciudad de México | Constitución Política de la Ciudad de México | The Constitution, adopted in 2017, is the most recently enacted in the nation. It places a strong emphasis on human rights and also acknowledges animals as sentient beings. Specifically, Article 13(b) explicitly recognizes animals as sentient beings and mandates their dignified treatment. This article not only imposes a moral obligation, but also a legal duty to uphold the life and well-being of animals. Under this provision, authorities are tasked with ensuring the protection, well-being, and the dignified and respectful treatment of animals. | Statute |