Results
| Title | Citation | Alternate Citation | Agency Citation | Summary | Type |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| MD - Prince George's County - Breed - § 3-185.01 Pit Bull Terriers. | PRINCE GEORGE'S COUNTY, MD., §§ 3-101, 3-116.01, 3-185.01 (1997) |
Prince George's County, Maryland prohibits owning or keeping a Pit Bull Terrier with exceptions. If the person owned the dog prior to November 1, 1996, then s/he may continue to keep it if s/he complies with certain conditions, such as registering it with the Administrator of Animal Control and keeping an ID tag on the dog and keeping the dog inside or on a secure leash. Show dogs are allowed into the county on a temporary basis. Dogs that have been trained for security, search and rescue, or for police or fire services are exempt. A violation of this ordinance may result in a fine of up to $1,000 or be sentenced to up to 6 months in prison. In addition, if a Pit Bull injures or kills a person or a domestic animal without provocation, then it will be destroyed. |
Local Ordinance | ||
| State v. Spade | 695 S.E.2d 879 (W.Va., 2010) | 2010 WL 2243519 (W.Va.), 225 W.Va. 649 (2010) |
In 2006, appellant was charged with one count of animal cruelty after 149 dogs were seized from her rescue shelter. The Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia held that, since the appellant (1) entered into a valid plea agreement which "specifically and unequivocally reserved a restitution hearing" and (2) "attempted on numerous occasions to challenge the amounts she was required by the magistrate court to post in separate bonds," that the final order of the Circuit Court of Berkeley County should be reversed. Accordingly, the court found that the plaintiff was entitled to a restitution hearing to determine the actual reasonable costs incurred in providing care, medical treatment, and provisions to the animals seized. |
Case | |
| US - Critical Habitat - Critical Habitat Listing for Five Endangered Mussels in the Tennessee and Cumberland River Basins | 2004 WL 1924143 (F.R.) | 50 CFR Part 17, RIN 1018-AI76 |
The FWS has designated designate 13 river and stream segments in the Tennessee Cumberland River Basins, for a total of approximately 885 river as critical habitat for five endangered mussels: Cumberland elktoe ( Alasmidonta atropurpurea ), oyster mussel ( Epioblasma capsaeformis ), Cumberlandian combshell ( Epioblasma brevidens ), purple bean ( Villosa perpurpurea ), and rough rabbitsfoot ( Quadrula cylindrica strigillata ). All five mussels belong to the Unionidae family. |
Administrative | |
| State v. McIntosh | 682 S.W.3d 449 (Mo. Ct. App. 2024) | 2024 WL 302430 (Mo. Ct. App. Jan. 26, 2024) | This case is an appeal following the defendant's conviction of animal abuse and assault in the fourth degree. Defendant claimed that the trial court erred in convicting him of animal abuse due to insufficient evidence showing that he purposely caused suffering to the dog he allegedly abused. The event that led to defendant's conviction was witnessed by a neighbor, who saw the defendant in his backyard swinging a small dog through the air by its leash and collar. The neighbor also saw defendant climb on top of the dog to choke it and slam its head into the ground. The neighbor testified at trial about these events, and the trial court found defendant guilty of animal abuse and assault in the fourth degree. The court of appeals held that there was sufficient evidence, consisting of the neighbor's testimony, and affirmed the judgment of the trial court. | Case | |
| WY - Impound - § 33-30-215. Disposition of unclaimed animals in custody of veterinarians; | W. S. 1977 § 33-30-215 | WY ST § 33-30-215 | This Wyoming statute states that any animal placed in the custody of a licensed veterinarian for treatment, boarding, or other care, which is then unclaimed by its owner for a period of more than ten days after written notice is given to the owner at his or her last known address, shall be deemed to be abandoned. It may then be turned over to the nearest humane society or dog pound in the area where it may be disposed of as the shelter sees fit. | Statute | |
| Leider v. Lewis | 243 Cal. App. 4th 1078 (Cal. 2016) | 2016 WL 164343 (Cal. Ct. App. Jan. 14, 2016) | Plaintiffs, taxpayers Aaron Leider and the late Robert Culp, filed suit against the Los Angeles Zoo and Director Lewis to enjoin the continued operation of the elephant exhibit and to prevent construction of a new, expanded exhibit. Plaintiffs contend that the Zoo's conduct violates California animal cruelty laws and constitutes illegal expenditure of public funds and property. The case went to trial and the trial court issued limited injunctions relating to forms of discipline for the elephants, exercise time, and rototilling of the soil in the exhibit. On appeal by both sides, this court first took up whether a taxpayer action could be brought for Penal Code violations or to enforce injunctions. The Court held that the earlier Court of Appeals' decision was the law of the case as to the argument that the plaintiff-taxpayer was precluded from obtaining injunctive relief for conduct that violated the Penal Code. The Court found the issue was previously decided and "is not defeated by raising a new argument that is essentially a twist on an earlier unsuccessful argument." Further, refusing to apply this Civil Code section barring injunctions for Penal Code violations will not create a substantial injustice. The Court also found the order to rototill the soil was proper because it accords with the "spirit and letter" of Penal Code section 597t (a law concerning exercise time for confined animals). As to whether the exhibit constituted animal cruelty under state law, the Court found no abuse of discretion when the trial court declined to make such a finding. Finally, the Court upheld the lower court's ruling that declined further injunctive relief under section 526a (a law that concerns actions against state officers for injuries to public property) because the injury prong could not be satisfied. As stated by the Court, "We agree with the trial court that there is no standard by which to measure this type of harm in order to justify closing a multi-million dollar public exhibit." | Case | |
| US - Marine Mammals - Taking of Marine Mammals Incidental to Commercial Fishing Operations | 1999 WL 379911 (F.R.) |
NMFS proposes regulations to implement provisions of the International Dolphin Conservation Program Act (IDCPA). These regulations would allow the entry of yellowfin tuna into the United States under certain conditions from nations signatory to the International Dolphin Conservation Program (IDCP) that otherwise would be under embargo. |
Administrative | ||
| SC - Hunting, Internet - § 50-11-95. Computer-assisted remote hunting and remote hunting | Code 1976 § 50-11-95 | SD ST § 50-11-95 | This statute makes it illegal to establish or operate computer-assisted remote hunting facilities in South Carolina. It is also illegal to engage in computer-assisted remote hunting if either the animal hunted, or any device, equipment, or software to remotely control the firearm is located in this State. A person who violates this section is guilty of a misdemeanor and may be fined at least $5,000 and/or imprisoned for up to one year. | Statute | |
| I.B. Sirmans v. State | 534 S.E.2d 862(Ga.App.,2000) | 2000 Fulton County D. Rep. 2440 |
Defendant was convicted of four counts of animal cruelty and one count of simple assault. The portion of the sentence depriving defendant of animals which the State failed to demonstrate were abused vacated and case remanded; judgment affirmed in all other respects because the motion to suppress was properly denied, and defendant was not prejudiced by the trial court's refusal to sever the trial. |
Case | |
| State v. Scott | 2001 Tenn. Crim. App. LEXIS 561 | The appellant pled guilty to one count of animal fighting, one count of cruelty to animals, and one count of keeping unvaccinated dogs, and asked for probation. The trial court denied the appellants request for probation and sentenced him to incarceration. The appellant challenged the trial court's ruling, and the appellate court affirmed the trial court's decision to deny probation, stating that the heinous nature of the crimes warranted incarceration. | Case |