Results
Displaying 71 - 80 of 6638
| Title | Citation | Alternate Citation | Agency Citation | Summary | Type |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| NE - Cruelty - Consolidated Cruelty Laws (Article 10) | Neb. Rev. St. § 28-1001 - 1020 | NE ST § 28-1001 to 1020 | This Nebraska statutory section comprises the state's anti-cruelty and animal fighting provisions. The cruelty provision provides that a person who abandons or cruelly neglects an animal is guilty of a Class I misdemeanor. Intentional animal cruelty results in a Class I misdemeanor for the first offense and a Class IV felony for any subsequent offense, unless such cruel mistreatment involves the knowing and intentional torture, repeated beating, or mutilation of the animal where such an act automatically results in a Class IV felony. Animal means any vertebrate member of the animal kingdom, but does not include an uncaptured wild creature (which appears to exclude otherwise heinous, intentional acts to wildlife). | Statute | |
| CO - Cruelty, reporting - § 19-3-304. Persons required to report child abuse or neglect | C. R. S. A. § 19-3-304 | CO ST § 19-3-304 | This Colorado statute relates to mandatory reporting for child abuse or neglect. With respect to animal-related issues, the statute requires veterinarians, officers and agents of the state bureau of animal protection, and animal control officers to report suspected abuse or neglect as described in the law. | Statute | |
| KY - Impound - Chapter 258. Animal Control and Protection. | KRS § 258.215 | KY ST § 258.215 | This Kentucky statute provides that peace officers, dog wardens, or animal control officers shall seize and impound any dog which does not bear a proper license tag or other legible identification which is found running at large. Interestingly, if an officer after diligent effort to do so, should fail to seize the dog, it is his or her duty to destroy the dog by any reasonable and humane means. The statute specifically exempts actively engaged hunting dogs from the "loose dog" prohibition. | Statute | |
| Justice for Animals, Inc. v. Lenoir County SPCA, Inc. | 168 N.C. App. 298, 607 S.E.2d 317 aff'd on other grounds, 360 N.C. 48, 619 S.E.2d 494 (2005) | 2005 WL 221226 (N.C. 2005) |
An animal control facility's practice of euthanizing feral cats without holding them for 72 hours was challenged by a non-profit organization. The animal control facility's method for determining if a cat is feral consisted only of poking the animal and gaging its reaction. The trial court dismissed the claim, but the Court of Appeals reversed the decision. |
Case | |
| Pet Fair, Inc. v. Humane Society of Greater Miami | 583 So.2d 407 (Fl. 1991) | 16 Fla. L. Weekly D1986 (1991) |
The owner of allegedly neglected or mistreated domestic animals that were seized by police could not be required to pay for costs of animals' care after it was determined that owner was in fact able to adequately provide for the animals, and after the owner declined to re-possess the animals. The Humane Society can require an owner to pay it costs associated with caring for an animal if the owner re-claims the animal, but not if the animal is adopted out to a third party.
|
Case | |
| MN - Humane Slaughter - Chapter 31. Food. Slaughter of Livestock | M.S.A. § 31.59 - 31.592 | MN ST § 31.59 - 31.592 | This section comprises Minnesota's humane slaughter laws. The law requires humane slaughter of livestock, defined as any method of slaughtering livestock which normally causes animals to be rendered insensible to pain by a single blow of a mechanical instrument or shot of a firearm or by chemical, or other means that are rapid and effective; or by methods of preparation necessary to Halal ritual slaughter, Jewish ritual slaughter and of slaughtering required by the ritual of the Islamic or Jewish faith. "Livestock" under this act is limited to cattle, horses, swine, sheep and goats. | Statute | |
| DE - Law-Enforcement Animal - § 1250. Offenses against law-enforcement animals | 11 Del.C. § 1250 | DE ST TI 11 § 1250 | This Delaware statute penalizes those who harass a law-enforcement animal. The statute states what constitutes assault in the first and second degree against a law-enforcement animal. | Statute | |
| HI - Therapy animals - [§ 323-51]. Animal therapy | H R S § 323-51 | HI ST § 323-51 | This Hawaii law allows common household pets to be brought into long term health care facilities for the purpose of visiting patients. The institution can determine the rules for visitation. It also may require the animal owner o produce written documentation from a veterinarian attesting to the animal's good health. | Statute | |
| Perez v. County of Monterey | --- Cal.Rptr.3d ---- 2019 WL 621483 (Cal. Ct. App. Feb. 14, 2019) | Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 1493 (Cal. Ct. App. Feb. 14, 2019) | In this California case, the plaintiffs sued to challenge the validity of the County of Monterey rooster-keeping ordinance, seeking a declaratory judgment that the law is unconstitutional. The ordinance limits residents to no more than four roosters on a single property without a rooster keeping permit and also describes care and keeping requirements. The trial court found that the ordinance did not violate the constitution and entered judgment for the City. Plaintiffs here appeal that decision, arguing that the ordinance: (1) takes property without compensation in violation of the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution; (2) infringes on Congress’ authority to regulate interstate commerce; (3) violates the Equal Protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution; (4) is a prohibited bill of attainder; and (5) violates the rights to privacy and to possess property guaranteed by the California Constitution. With respect to the Fifth Amendment taking challenge, the court found that the regulatory takings argument failed because there is no evidence that the ordinance affected plaintiffs or that they even applied for or were eligible for a permit. As to the interstate commerce challenge, plaintiffs provided no evidence that the ordinance would cause excess roosters to be divested from owners and sold in commerce to support this claim. As to Equal Protection, the plaintiffs correctly assert that the ordinance treats people differently based on age (i.e., students engaged in 4-H or FFA activities are exempted from the four-rooster limitation). However, the court found that the county stated a legitimate objective of public health and safety and this differential treatment of a non-suspect class advances that interest. Finally, the court found the ordinance was not a bill of attainder since it prospectively regulates roosters and also that it does not violate California's right to privacy and property possession. Indeed, the court found that plaintiff did not identify a specific privacy interest implicated by the ordinance. Thus, the judgment was affirmed. | Case | |
| US - Permits - Subpart D. Conditions. § 13.42 Permits are specific. | 67 FR 12824 | 50 C.F.R. § 13.42 | This regulation provides that permits issued to collect or otherwise take wildlife or plants are strictly construed. | Administrative |