Results
Displaying 81 - 90 of 6637
| Title | Citation | Alternate Citation | Agency Citation | Summary | Type |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| WY - Initiative - Right to Hunt, Fish and Trap, Amendment B | Amendment B (2012) | The adoption of this amendment will recognize and preserve the heritage of Wyoming citizens' opportunity to fish, hunt and trap wildlife, subject to regulation as prescribed by law. It was passed by 84.8% of voters in 2012. | Statute | ||
| Animal Law Volume 15 Part 2 Index |
|
Policy | |||
| Lindauer v. LDB Drainlaying, Inc. | 555 P.2d 197 (Colo.App. 1976) | 38 Colo.App. 266 (1976) |
In this Colorado case, the owners of a thoroughbred racehorse brought a negligence action to recover for injuries to his horse against the corporation that installed underground pipe on property leased by plaintiffs. The lower court entered judgment on a verdict awarding damages to plaintiffs. On appeal, this court held that the evidence of negligence and contributory negligence was sufficient for jury where defendant physically left an unfinished project for two months where the horse was injured. Defendant still owed a duty of care that it would have owed as contractor. However, plaintiffs were not entitled to damages for care and feeding of injured horse.
|
Case | |
| VT - Fur - Chapter 173. Domestic Fur-Bearing Animals | 6 V.S.A. § 3071 - 3073 (Repealed by 2015, No. 61, § 13) | VT ST T. 6 § 3071 - 3073 (Repealed by 2015, No. 61, § 13) | Note: §§3071 to 3073. Repealed by 2015, No. 61, § 13, eff. June 17, 2015. Under these Vermont statutes, the owner of domestic fur-bearing animals enjoy the same property rights as any other domestic animal. No one may enter the enclosure of, or knowingly and wilfully kill, trap, or injure a fur-bearing animal without permission from the owner. A violation may result in a fine of up to $200 and/or imprisonment up to six months. | Statute | |
| KS - Rabies - 9-18-5 Importing dogs and cats. | K.A.R. 9-18-5 | KS ADC 9-18-5 | This Kansas regulation states that dogs and cats shall not be imported into Kansas unless accompanied by a certificate of veterinary inspection issued by a licensed veterinarian and vaccinated against rabies with a product licensed by the U.S.D.A., with the duration of immunity and method of administration in accordance with the manufacturer's guidelines. Dogs and cats under three months of age shall not be required to be vaccinated against rabies. | Administrative | |
| Warren v. Commonwealth | 822 S.E.2d 395 (Va. Ct. App., 2019) | 69 Va. App. 659, 2019 WL 189386 (Va. Ct. App., 2019) | Warren, the defendant in this case, videotaped on his cell phone sexual encounters he had with K.H. and her dog. The videos showed the dog's tongue penetrating K.H.'s vagina while K.H. performed oral sex on Warren. In March of 2017, Deputy Sheriff Adam Reynolds spoke to Warren about an unrelated matter. Warren asked if "bestiality type stuff" was "legal or illegal," described the cellphone videos, and offered to show them to Reynolds. Reynolds contacted Investigator Janet Sergeant and they obtained a search warrant and removed the videos from Warren's cellphone. Warren was indicted and moved to dismiss the indictment arguing that Code § 18.2-361(A), which criminalizes soliciting another person to "carnally know a brute animal or to submit to carnal knowledge with a brute animal," is facially unconstitutional and unconstitutional as applied to him. "He argued that the conduct depicted in the videos could not be subject to criminal sanction because it amounted to nothing more than consensual conduct involving adults." The trial court denied Warren's motion to dismiss. The trial court convicted Warren of the charged offense. Warren appealed again challenging the constitutionality of the offense and that it violated his due process rights. Warren relied on a Supreme Court case, Lawrence v. Texas, which held that two adults engaging in consensual homosexual sexual practices was protected by the due process clause. He argued that the reasoning of Lawrence applies with equal force to his case. The Court of Appeals reasoned that although Code § 18.2-361(A) cannot criminalize sodomy between consenting adults, it can continue to regulate other forms of sodomy, like bestiality. "If Lawrence, which involved a prohibition on same-sex sodomy, did not facially invalidate the anti-sodomy provision of then Code § 18.2-361(A), it defies logic that it facially invalidates the bestiality portion of the statute that existed before the 2014 amendment and is all that remains after that amendment." Even though Warren claims his right as "the right of adults to engage in consensual private conduct without intervention of the government," the court concluded that the right he is actually asserting is the right to engage in bestiality. Code § 18.2-361(A) "does not place any limitation on the rights of consenting adults to engage in private, consensual, noncommercial, sexual acts with each other." The only act it prohibits is sexual conduct with a brute animal. Therefore, the only right the statute could possibly infringe on wold be the right to engage in bestiality. The Commonwealth has a legitimate interest in banning sex with animals. The Court of Appeals held that the General Assembly's prohibition of bestiality does not violate the Due Process Clause of the Constitution. The Court rejected Warren's challenge to the constitutionality of the statute and affirmed the judgment of the trial court. | Case | |
| CUIDADO DE LOS ANIMALES | 207 Animal Protection Law |
New comprehensive Animal Welfare Law for Spain - in spanish only. |
Statute | ||
| SD - Marion - Breed - 9.0312 Vicious or Diseased Animals. | MARION, S.D., CITY ORDINANCES § 9.0312 (2002) |
In Marion, South Dakota, it is unlawful to keep, maintain or have in their possession or under their control any vicious animal, which includes Pit Bulls, Doberman Pincers, and Rottweilers. Police are authorized to impound any vicious dog or kill it without impounding it. A violation is a misdemeanor. |
Local Ordinance | ||
| Federation of Japan Salmon Fisheries Cooperative Association v. Baldridge | 679 F. Supp. 37 (1987) |
Petitioners, Japanese fishing federation, fisherman's association, and environmental group, filed motions for a preliminary injunction against respondent Secretary of Commerce who entered a final decision that approved the federation for an incidental take permit under the MMPA and adopted regulations that authorized the taking of Dall's porpoise within the fishery conservation zone. |
Case | ||
| TN - Hunting, Internet - Part 5. Computer-Assisted Hunting from Remote Locations | T. C. A. § 70-4-501 - 504 | TN ST § 70-4-501 - 504 | This set of Tennessee laws prohibits computer-assisted remote hunting or providing or operating facilities for computer-assisted remote hunting if the wildlife being hunted is located in this state. Computer-assisted remote hunting is defined as "the use of a computer or any other device, equipment or software, to control remotely the aiming and discharge of a rifle, shotgun, handgun, bow and arrow, cross-bow or any other implement to hunt wildlife." | Statute |