Results
Displaying 31 - 40 of 6638
| Title | Citation | Alternate Citation | Summary | Type |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Hannah v. State | --- A.3d ----, 2024 WL 885161 (Md. Ct. Spec. App. Mar. 1, 2024) | 2024 WL 885161 (Md.App., 2024) | This case is an appeal of the defendant's conviction on multiple counts of aggravated cruelty to animals, and abuse or neglect of animals. Defendant appeals the felony convictions of aggravated cruelty to animals, arguing that the animal's pain and suffering was caused by neglect rather than any intentional acts. The animals were seized from the defendant's home, where they were found to be lacking food, water, space, and sufficient veterinary care. A veterinarian testified that the animals were underweight, dehydrated, and many had wounds that were not properly treated. Defendant argues that this treatment constitutes abuse or neglect, and that is what the legislature intended to be punished as a misdemeanor. The court considered the use of the word "torture" under the statute, finding that as the actor's conduct is intentional, and results in pain and suffering to the animal, the definition applies. Here, the court finds that there was sufficient evidence that the actions were intentional and resulting in pain and suffering, so the defendant tortured the animals. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the lower court. | Case |
| ME - Ferret - Chapter 730-A. Breeding, Sale and Transportation of Small Mammals | 7 M. R. S. A. § 3970-A to 3970-B | ME ST T. 7 § 3970-A to 3970-B | This chapter concerns the sale and importation of juvenile ferrets. | Statute |
| NY - Assistance Animals - Assistance Animal/Guide Dog Laws | McKinney's Agriculture and Markets Law § 108, 110, 118, 123-b; McKinney's General Obligations Law § 11-107; McKinney's Civil Rights Law § 47, 47-a to c; McKinney's Penal Law § 195.11 - 12; § 242.00 - .15; McKinney's Public Housing Law § 223-a, b | McKinney's Executive Law § 296; McKinney's Social Services Law § 303-a; McKinney's Transportation Law § 147; McKinney's Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1153 | The following statutes comprise the state's relevant assistance animal and guide dog laws. | Statute |
| NV - Research - 598.993. Prohibition on import, sale or offer for sale of cosmetic products tested on animals; exceptions; | N.R.S. 598.993 | N. R. S. 598.993, NV ST 598.993 | This Nevada law, enacted in 2020, states that a manufacturer shall not import for profit, sell or offer for sale in this State any cosmetic for which the manufacturer knew or reasonably should have known that animal testing was conducted or contracted by or on behalf of the manufacturer or any supplier of the manufacturer if the animal testing was conducted on or after January 1, 2020. Limited exceptions exist. A violation of this section constitutes a deceptive trade practice for the purposes of NRS 598.0903 to 598.0999, inclusive. | Statute |
| Earl v. Piowaty | 42 A.D.3d 865 (N.Y.A.D. 3 Dept.) | 2007 N.Y. Slip Op. 06212, 2007 WL 2127342 (N.Y.A.D. 3 Dept.), 839 N.Y.S.2d 861 | Plaintiffs' son was seriously injured when he was bitten in the face by a dog that belonged to defendant Susan Piowaty. Plaintiffs brought action on behalf of their son against Piowaty and the animal shelter from which Piowaty had adopted the dog two weeks prior to the incident, alleging that they had constructive notice of the dog's vicious propensities because of a minor incident earlier that week. However, this court agreed with the denial of plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment because there remains a triable issue as to the defendants' notice of the dog's vicious propensities at the time of the son's injury. | Case |
| NC - Edenton - Breed - Vicious Dogs | EDENTON, N.C., CODE OF ORDINANCES § 90.43 |
In Edenton, North Carolina, it is unlawful to keep, harbor, own or possess any potentially vicious dog, which includes pit bulls, Rottweilers, and Chows. There are exceptions for dogs registered on the effective date, provided that the owner uses a leash and muzzle on the dog, keeps it properly confined, posts “Beware of Dog” signs, takes identification photographs, sterilizes the dog, and complies with reporting requirements. Failure to comply may result in seizure and impoundment of the dog. |
Local Ordinance | |
| Hines v. Quillivan | 982 F.3d 266 (5th Cir. 2020) | This case asks whether a veterinarian in Texas has a right to engage in telemedicine for a pet he has not physically examined. The plaintiff challenged Texas' physical-examination requirement that prohibits veterinarians from offering individualized advice to pet owners unless the vet previously examined the animal. Dr. Ronald Hines, a licensed veterinarian in Texas, stopped practicing in-person veterinary medicine in 2002 due to his age and other ailments. He then transitioned to a practice based remotely through the Internet. In 2012, the Texas State Board of Veterinary Medical Examiners (the Board) investigated Hines and found he had violated state law. The Board ordered him to cease providing veterinary advice electronically without first physically examining the animal. In 2013, Dr. Hines filed suit against the Board members claiming that the physical-examination requirement violated his First Amendment, equal-protection, and substantive-due-process rights. The district court then granted the motion to dismiss by the Board and the Court of Appeals found Hines failed to state a claim on appeal. Since that 2015 opinion, Texas revised its medical doctor laws, allowing them to engage in telemedicine, but did not do the same for veterinary practice laws. In addition to that change, a United States Supreme Court held that statements made by medical doctors could now be deemed "professional speech" (the "NIFLA" case). As a result of these changes, Hines brought the present suit arguing that the changes in Texas' telemedicine laws and the NIFLA case enabled him to pursue a new equal-protection claim and First Amendment claim. With regard to his protected speech claim, this Court found that subsequent caselaw does entitle Hines' claim to greater judicial scrutiny than his previous case allowed. Thus, remand to the district court to make the initial evaluation of whether Hines' conduct or speech is being regulated is required. On the equal-protection argument, the court found that Hines presents an argument slightly different than his previous one. In essence, Hines argued in the prior appeal that the he physical-examination requirement treated veterinarians engaging in telemedicine differently than other veterinarians. Here, Hines argues that changes to the medical doctor licensing laws treats medical doctors differently than veterinarians in the state with respect to telemedicine. Using a rational-basis review, the court held that it is rational to distinguish between human and animal medicine because of the differences in training, schooling, and overall practice of the professions. The court found the state's proffered reason that animals cannot communicate their symptoms as humans can ordinarily was a persuasive rational basis (although both Hines and the Dissent note that some humans like infants are unable to speak similar to animals and yet are allowed to be treated via telemedicine). The court found the services provided by both professions are not interchangeable and thus, the physical-examination requirement is not a protectionist measure for medical doctors. Ultimately, the court left it to the Texas legislature to expand any telemedicine changes to the veterinary practice code. The action was affirmed in part, reversed and remanded in part. | Case | |
| State v. Hartrampf | 847 P.2d 856 (Oregon 1993) | 118 Or.App. 237 (1993) |
Defendant appealed a conviction for attempted involvement in animal fighting, arguing that the statutes at issue were unconstitutionally vague. Since the defendant admitted he knowingly was among spectators at farm hosting a cockfighting event, the Court of Appeals held that a person of common intelligence could discern that defendant's conduct constituted a substantial step toward involvement in animal fighting. |
Case |
| IN - Endangered Species - Chapter 34. Nongame and Endangered Species Conservation | I.C. 14-22-34-1 to 21 | IN ST 14-22-34-1 to 21 | These Indiana statutes set out the definitions related to endangered species and prohibit any form of possession of listed species, including taking, transporting, purchasing or selling except by permit. Listed species may be removed, captured, or destroyed if it is shown by good cause that the species are causing property damage or are a danger to human health. | Statute |
| NE - Predators - Article 5. Regulations and Prohibited Acts. (e) Damage by Wildlife | Neb. Rev. St. § 37-559 to 563 | NE ST § 37-559 to 563 | This statute provides that a farmer or rancher may kill a predator that threatens agricultural or livestock interests without first having obtained a permit. The provision does not allow a farmer or rancher to destroy those species protected under the federal Endangered Species Act, the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act, and other listed federal wildlife acts. | Statute |