Results

Displaying 1 - 10 of 6592
Title Citation Alternate Citation Summary Type
People v. Berry 1 Cal. App. 4th 778 (1991) 2 Cal.Rptr.2d 416 (1991)

In a prosecution arising out of the killing of a two-year-old child by a pit bulldog owned by a neighbor of the victim, the owner was convicted of involuntary manslaughter (Pen. Code, §   192, subd. (b)), keeping a mischievous animal (Pen. Code, §   399), and keeping a fighting dog (Pen. Code, §   597.5, subd. (a)(1)). The Court of Appeal affirmed, holding that an instruction that a minor under the age of five years is not required to take precautions, was proper. The court further held that the trial court erred in defining "mischievous" in the jury instruction, however, the erroneous definition was not prejudicial error under any standard of review. The court also held that the scope of defendant's duty owed toward the victim was not defined by Civ. Code, §   3342, the dog-bite statute; nothing in the statute suggests it creates a defense in a criminal action based on the victim's status as a trespasser and on the defendant's negligence.

Case
Tlaxcala

This southwestern state is the smallest of the Mexican states. In 2022, Tlaxcala joined the vast list of states in Mexico that punish animal cruelty as a criminal offense. Before that, this state only had an animal protection law that was enacted in 2019.

Policy
VA - Hunting - § 29.1-521. Unlawful to hunt, trap, possess, sell or transport wild birds and wild animals except as permitted; e Va. Code Ann. § 29.1-521 VA ST § 29.1-521 This statute makes it a Class 3 misdemeanor to take listed wild animals. In 2014, Virginia prohibited hunting or killing any deer or bear with a gun, firearm, or other weapon with the aid or assistance of dogs on Sundays. This statute also provides a procedural mechanism for registered Virginia Native Americans to obtain wild animal parts (i.e., eagle feathers) for ceremonial religious use. Statute
KS - Spring Hill - Breed - 2-402. PROHIBITED ANIMALS - GENERALLY (Pit Bull Ordinance) SPRING HILL, KS., CITY CODE §§ 2-401 - 2-404 (2008)

Spring Hill, Kansas, considers pit bull dogs to be inherently dangerous and makes it unlawful to keep, harbor, own or possess any pit bull dog. Any dog in violation may be immediately seized and impounded. even killed if necessary. A violation may result in a $500 - $2,000 fine and imprisonment for up to 179 days. The dog will also have to be removed from the city.

Local Ordinance
Williams v. McMahan 2002 WL 242538 (Wa. 2002) 110 Wash.App. 1031 (2002)

The plaintiff sued for damages as a result of the wrongful spaying of her purebred dog, which she intended to breed. The court found that damages should be measured by the fair market value of the dog.

Case
In the Matter of: Richard O'Barry 1999 NOAA LEXIS 1 1999 NOAA LEXIS 1

In 1999, civil penalties in the amount of $59,500 were assessed for the release of two dolphins from captivity.  The dolphins were not prepared to survive in the wild and sustained life-threatening injuries as a result of their release.  An administrative law judge found that the release of two dolphins without providing them with the necessary skills for survival resulted in harassment and injury to them, and therefore, constituted a violation of the MMPA.

Case
Constitutional Law of Human Rights and its Guarantees of Mexico City Ley Constitucional de Derechos Humanos y sus Garantías de la Ciudad de México This 2019 law is a secondary law that regulates the application of the constitutional mandate that the Mexico City government guarantees the fulfillment of the more than fifty fundamental rights established in the Constitution. This law addresses the issue of animal protection, specifically in Article 95. Article 95 states that animal protection shall be guaranteed in the broadest way to provide a livable city and seek people's fulfillment of the right to a healthy environment. Statute
Derecho Animal Volume 7 Núm 2

Tabla de contenidos

 

Editorial

 

ICALP - International Center for Animal Law and Policy

Teresa Giménez-Candela

PDF

PDF (EN)

Policy
Animal Legal Defense Fund v. Herbert This complaint launches the first legal challenge to any ag-gag law in the United States. In it, the Animal Legal Defense Fund, People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, Amy Meyer, and others argue that Utah Code Ann. § 76-6-112 is unconstitutionally overbroad, constitutes content-based discrimination in violation of the First Amendment, is preempted by the federal False Claims Act, and violates animal protection groups’ equal protection and due process. Pleading
SC - Exotic Pets - § 47-5-50. Prohibition on sale of wild carnivores as pets; sale of domesticated ferrets. Code 1976 § 47-5-20, § 47-5-50 SC ST § 47-5-20, § 47-5-50 This South Carolina law provides that no carnivores, which normally are not domesticated, may be sold as pets in this State. A carnivore kept by an individual must not be allowed to run at large and then returned to confinement. A normally wild animal indigenous to this State, if held captive for a period of time, may be released to the wild. This section does not apply to domesticated ferrets. Each business that sells ferrets must also display a notice about the potential danger of unprovoked attacks against humans. Statute

Pages