Results
| Title | Citation | Alternate Citation | Summary | Type |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| NV - Pet Sales - Title 50. Animals. Chapter 574. Cruelty to Animals: Prevention and Penalties | N. R. S. 574.450 to 574.510 | NV ST 574.450 to 574.510 | This Nevada statutory section comprises the state's pet sale laws. The law protects purchasers of pets by ensuring minimum standards of care at retail pet stores and allows purchasers to return "defective" pets within ten days of purchase. | Statute |
| DE - Sharks - § 928A. Trade in shark fins; penalty | 7 Del.C. § 928A | DE ST TI 7 § 928A | This Delaware statute prohibits people from possessing, selling, trading, or distributing a shark fin unless a person possesses a license to do so from the State. The statute also lists the penalty for violations. | Statute |
| Mansour v. King County | 128 P.3d 1241 (Wash.App. Div. 1,2006) | 131 Wash.App. 255 (Wash.App. Div. 1,2006) |
King County Animal Control issued an order requiring that Mansour to remove his dog from King County or give her up to be euthanized. On appeal, Mansour argued that the Board hearing violated his due process rights. The court of appeals agreed, finding that in order for Mansour, or any other pet owner, to effectively present his case and rebut the evidence against him, due process requires that he be able to subpoena witnesses and records. |
Case |
| NC - Service Animals - § 20-187.4. Disposition of retired service animals | N.C.G.S.A. § 17F-21 (formerly N.C.G.S.A. § 20-187.4) | NC ST § 17F-21 (formerly NC ST § 20-187.4) | This statute allows for a retired service animal to be transferred to an officer or employee who had custody of the animal during the animal's public service, a surviving spouse or surviving children of a deceased officer or employee who had custody of the animal during its service, or an organization dedicated to assisting retired service animals. | Statute |
| State v. Mortensen | 191 P.3d 1097 (Hawai'i App., 2008) | 2008 WL 4195895 (Hawai'i App.), 118 Hawai'i 420 |
Defendant found guilty of Cruelty to Animals under a State statute after firing a pellet gun at/toward a cat which was later found with and died from a fatal wound. On Defendant’s appeal, the Intermediate Court of Appeals of Hawai’i affirmed the lower court’s decision, finding that evidence that Defendant knowingly fired the pellet gun at a group of cats within the range of such a gun was sufficient to find that Defendant recklessly shot and killed the cat. In making its decision, the Court of Appeals further found that the legislature clearly did not intend for a cat to be considered vermin or a pest for purposes of the relevant State anti-cruelty statute’s exception, and instead clearly intended for a cat to be considered a “pet animal.” |
Case |
| Test Drilling Service Co. v. Hanor Company | 322 F.Supp.2d 957 (C.D. Ill. 2003) |
Owner of oil and gas mineral rights sued the operators of commercial hog confinement facilities for negligence, claiming that the operator's allowed hog waste to escape the confines of the facility and flow into the mineral rights. The District Court held that plaintiff's alleged damages were not barred by a rule prohibiting recovery of economic loss in tort actions; that defendant's alleged violations were evidence of negligence, but not negligence per se; and that defendant's owed a duty of ordinary care to plaintiff. |
Case | |
| R (on the application of Patterson) v. RSPCA | EWHC 4531 | The defendants had been convicted of a number of counts of animal cruelty in 2011, to include unnecessary suffering pursuant to Section 4, and participation in a blood sport under Section 8 of the Animal Welfare Act 2006. Mr Patterson was found to have breached an attached disqualification order under Section 34 of the Animal Welfare Act 2006, on which this appeal is based. The order covered all types of animals for a period of five years. This prohibited him from owning, keeping, participating in the keeping of, or being a party to an arrangement under which he would be entitled to control or influence the way in which animals are kept. A number of animals were found and seized at the home. The appeal was allowed on the basis that Mr Patterson was not entitled to control or influence the way in which the animals were kept by his wife on the facts. | Case | |
| RI - Ordinances - § 4-13-8. Disposition of license fees | Gen. Laws, 1956, § 4-13-8 | RI ST § 4-13-8 | This Rhode Island statute provides that towns and cities may adopt ordinances or regulations concerning the use of money received for dog licenses. | Statute |
| NC - Hunting - § 113-291.1A. Computer-assisted remote hunting prohibited | N.C.G.S.A. § 113-291.1A | NC ST § 113-291.1A | This North Carolina law states that it is unlawful for a person to engage in computer-assisted remote hunting or provide or operate a facility that allows others to engage in computer-assisted remote hunting if the wild animal or wild bird being hunted or shot is located in this State. | Statute |
| Bolivia - Circus - LEY Nº 4040, 2009 | LEY Nº 4040, 2009 | This law eliminates the use of wild and/or domestic animals in circuses in the national territory, as it is considered an act of cruelty against animals. Circuses were given a deadline of one year to surrender their animals and modify their shows. | Statute |