Results
Displaying 5861 - 5870 of 6638
| Title | Citation | Alternate Citation | Summary | Type |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| VA - Licenses - § 3.2-6524. Unlicensed dogs prohibited; ordinances for licensing cats | Va. Code Ann. § 3.2-6524 | VA ST § 3.2-6524 | This Virginia statute provides that it is unlawful for any person to own a dog four months old or older in the state unless such dog is licensed. With regard to cats, the governing body of any county, city or town may, by local ordinance, prohibit any person from owning a cat four months or older within such locality unless such cat is licensed. | Statute |
| ME - Cruelty, reporting - § 3477. Persons mandated to report suspected abuse, neglect or exploitation | 22 M.R.S.A. § 3477 | Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 22, § 3477 | This Maine statute lists the mandated reporters in the state who must immediately report known or suspected abuse, neglect, or exploitation, of an incapacitated or dependent adult. The statute also allows permissive reporting of animal cruelty, abuse, or neglect and allows animal control officers to make reports when necessary. | Statute |
| Criscuolo v. Grant County | 540 F.Appx. 562 (9th Cir. 2013) | The plaintiff’s dog was shot by a police officer while eyewitnesses claim that right before he fired, the dog was stationary or retreating at a distance of 10-20 feet from the officer and his police K9. The pet owner filed suit against both the individual police officer and the municipality, who both claimed immunity, which was granted at the trial court. On appeal, the court upheld the dismissal of the municipality based on the fact that official policy did “not authorize unconstitutional conduct or give officers unbridled discretion to shoot any animal they encounter, even if it is not threatening.” However, the appellate court reversed the trial court’s decision in regards to the officer’s immunity, holding that viewing the circumstances in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, the killing was not necessarily reasonable to protect the officer’s safety or the safety of his police K9. | Case | |
| MI - Impound - Chapter 287. Animal Industry. Use of Dogs and Cats for Research. | MCL 287.388 | MI ST 287.388 | This Michigan statute provides that a dealer, a county, city, village, or township operating a dog pound or animal shelter shall not sell or otherwise dispose of a dog or cat within 4 days after its acquisition. If the dog or cat has a collar, license, or other evidence of ownership, the operator of the pound or shelter shall notify the owner in writing and disposition of the animal shall not be made within 7 days from the date of mailing the notice. | Statute |
| Poland - Cruelty - Polish Animal Protection Act | OJ No 111, Item 724(1997); No 106, Item 668 (1998) |
The general animal protection law for Poland. Covering all types of animal except hunting and endangered species. |
Statute | |
| ERIC SANDLE, plaintiff v. JEFRI DAVIS, and DOES 1-20 inclusive, defendant | This complaint arose from the intentional shooting of plaintiff's dog by defendant. Plaintiff was on his property pruning a tree when defendant shot plaintiff's dog, who was in the street at the time approximately three feet away from defendant. As a result of the shooting, plaintiff's dog is paralyzed in the back half of his body and suffers from bladder and bowel difficulties. Three causes of action were raised in the complaint: (1) intentional infliction of emotional distress; (2) conversion; and (3) violation of California Civil Code of Procedure Section 3340 (relating to damage to animals). | Pleading | ||
| CO - Wildlife - Article 6. Law Enforcement and Penalties--Wildlife. | C. R. S. A. § 33-6-101 to 142 | CO ST § 33-6-101 to 142 | These Colorado statutes represent Part 1 of the state's wildlife code. Among the provisions include violations for improperly taking wildlife, hunting provisions, and a law prohibiting computer-assisted remote hunting. | Statute |
| OR - Testing, animal - 646A.009. Sale of cosmetics developed or manufactured | O.R.S. § 646A.005 - .028 | OR ST § 646A.005 - .028 | This Oregon chapter deals with animal testing in cosmetics. Under the chapter, a manufacturer may not sell or offer to sell in this state a cosmetic that was, on or after January 1, 2024, developed or manufactured using cosmetic animal tests conducted or contracted for by the manufacturer or any supplier of the manufacturer. Limited exceptions exist. In addition to any other penalty provided by law, a manufacturer that sells or offers for sale a cosmetic in violation this act incurs a civil penalty of not more than $5,000 for the first day of the violation and not more than $1,000 for each day that the violation continues. | Statute |
| O'MALLEY, v. COMMONWEALTH of Virginia | 785 S.E.2d 221 (Va.,2016) | 66 Va. App. 296 (Va., 2016) | The appellant, John Dixon O'Malley was not charged with or convicted of any crime. However, he was issued a summons to determine whether his dog was dangerous pursuant to Virginia Code § 3.2–6540(A) and (B). The jury found O’Malley's dog to be dangerous under the Virginia Code due to attacking and injuring the dog of Randall Powell. O’Malley appealed the trial court decision to the Court of Appeals of Virginia. The Court of Appeals concluded that they did not have jurisdiction over the appeal due to being a court of limited jurisdiction. The Court relied on Virginia Code § 17.1–406(A) which provides that the Court of Appeals' appellate jurisdiction was limited to appeals from final criminal convictions. The Court of Appeals reasoned that no language in Code § 3.2–6540 characterized as criminal the proceeding to identify a canine as a dangerous dog. Therefore, the finding at the trial level that O’Malley's dog was dangerous was civil in nature. Because the finding was civil in nature, the Court of Appeals lacked subject matter jurisdiction over O’Malley’s appeal and the case was transferred to the Supreme Court of Virginia. | Case |
| LA - Veterinary - Veterinarians. | LSA-R.S. 37:1511 - 70 | These are the state's veterinary practice laws. Among the provisions include licensing requirements, laws concerning the state veterinary board, veterinary records laws, and the laws governing disciplinary actions for impaired or incompetent practitioners. | Statute |