Results
Displaying 1 - 10 of 6822
| Title | Citation | Alternate Citation | Summary | Type |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| TX - Domestic Violence - § 85.021-.022 Protective Orders | V.T.C.A., Family Code § 85.021 -.022 | TX FAMILY § 85.021 - 022 | In a protective order in Texas, the court may prohibit a party from removing a pet, companion animal, or assistance animal, as defined by Section 121.002, Human Resources Code, from the possession of a person named in the order. Furthermore, in a protective order, the court may prohibit the person found to have committed family violence from harming, threatening, or interfering with the care, custody, or control of a pet, companion animal, or assistance animal that is possessed by or is in the actual or constructive care of a person protected by an order or by a member of the family or household of a person protected by an order. | Statute |
| Com. v. Linhares | 957 N.E.2d 243 (Mass.App.Ct., 2011) | 80 Mass.App.Ct. 819 (2011); 2011 WL 5517133 (Mass.App.Ct.) |
Defendant intentionally hit a duck with his car and was convicted of cruelty to animals. The conviction was upheld by the Appeals Court because all that must be shown is that the defendant intentionally and knowingly did acts which were plainly of a nature to inflict unnecessary pain. Specific intent to cause harm is not required to support a conviction of cruelty to animals. |
Case |
| Virginia General Laws 1893: Cruelty to Animals | Va. Code Ann. §§ 4554-4567 (Michie 1913) | A collection of Virginia laws from 1893 concerning the punishment and enforcement against cruelty to animals. The laws cover cruelty to animals, power of agents of the court to search for cruelty to animals, and the punishment for shooting pigeons among other things. | Statute | |
| City of New York v. Ball | --- N.Y.S.3d ----, 2024 WL 3078319 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. June 21, 2024) | This New York case concerns a challenge to the New York City Local Law No. 2019/202 that prohibits restaurants and retail food establishments within the City of New York from selling or serving foie gras and other force-fed products. Petitioner City of New York challenges the final determination of respondents Richard A. Ball, as Commissioner of Agriculture and Markets, and the Department of Agriculture and Markets, which found that Local Law 202 unreasonably restricts and regulates farming operations within the agricultural districts where foie gras is produced, contrary to Agriculture and Markets Law (“AML”) § 305-a. The City argued that Local Law 202 does not impact AML § 305-a because it does not have a direct impact on the farms that produce the foie gras in the agricultural district in the county where it is produced. According to the City, Local Law 202 merely prohibits restaurants and food establishments within the City from selling force-fed products, and the Farms remain free to continue producing foie gras in agricultural districts through force-feeding. In looking at the statute text, this court found that a restriction on processes used within farm operations of agricultural districts fits within the purview of the statute. While New York has adopted broad home-rule powers, their scope is limited to regulation in the territorial boundaries. The testimony and legislative history of Local Law 202 demonstrates that the goal of the law was animal welfare as opposed to human health or safety; these practices are reasonably tied to farming practices in outside agricultural districts. Thus, the measure falls within the scope of AML § 305-a as a “local law” that “restrict[s] or regulate[s] farm operations in agricultural districts." While the City has a legitimate desire to protect animals from a cruel practice, it cannot do so in a manner that is inconsistent with state law. The court noted that the state legislature is free to "recalibrate" the statutory construction of AML § 305-a to allow animal welfare concerns, but, in its current form, that would be inconsistent with the language. The motions of intervenors were dismissed, the Petition was denied in all respects, and the proceeding was dismissed. | Case | |
| WI - Dog Bite - Chapter 174. Dogs. 174.12. Actions against owners | W. S. A. 174.12 | WI ST 174.12 | This Wisconsin statute outlines the allowance procedure by counties for damage done by dogs after a claim is filed and the county sues to recover from the owner of the damaging dog. The claimant shall first be notified that such action is contemplated and shall have been given a reasonable opportunity to be heard and to offer further evidence in support of the claimant's claim. It also provides that this chapter shall not in any way limit the existing right or authority of any town, village or city to pass ordinances for the keeping and regulating of dogs, or repeal or annul any existing statute or ordinance or local regulation governing the keeping and regulating of dogs. | Statute |
| AL - Ecoterrorism - Article 6A. Farm Animal, Crop, and Research Facilities Protection Act. | Ala. Code 1975 § 13A-11-150 - 158 | AL ST § 13A-11-150 to 158 | This article is known as the Farm Animal, Crop, and Research Facilities Protection Act. Under the Act, it is unlawful for any person to intentionally release, steal, destroy, or otherwise cause loss of any animal or crop from an animal or crop facility without the consent of the owner. Other illegal actions include vandalizing obtaining access by false pretenses for the purpose of performing acts not authorized by the facility, and possession of records obtained by theft or deception without authorization of the facility. Violation results in a Class C felony if the loss $250 or more or a Class A misdemeanor if the loss is less $250. | Statute |
| PA - Veterinary - Chapter 14A. Veterinary Medicine Practice. | 63 P.S. § 485.1 - 35 | PA ST 63 P.S. § 485.1 - 35 | 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 |
| Lee v. Cook |
Amicus Curae brief on why suit for wrongful death of a dog can include emotional damages. |
Pleading | ||
| Animal Liberation Ltd v Department of Environment & Conservation | [2007] NSWSC 221 |
The applicants sought to restrain a proposed aerial shooting of pigs and goats on interlocutory basis pending the outcome of a suit claiming the aerial shooting would constitute cruelty. It was found that the applicants did not have a 'special interest' and as such did not have standing to bring the injunction. The application was dismissed. |
Case | |
| PA - Pittsburgh - CHAPTER 635: Other Animals And Fowl ( Article 3: Dogs, Cats, and Other Animals) | Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania Code of Ordinances, Article 3: Dogs, Cats, and Other Animals, Secs. 635.03 - 635.08 |
These Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania ordinances prohibit any person from riding or driving any animal-drawn conveyance on any street or sidewalk within the city except by permit or by authorization from the Director of the Department of Public Works. Whoever violates this provision will be fined $100 for the first offense and $300 for any subsequent offenses. Additionally, these ordinances provide provisions related to rodeos and whoever violates these provisions will be punished by a fine not to exceed $1,000, imprisonment of up to 30 days, or both. |
Local Ordinance |