Results
| Title | Citation | Alternate Citation | Agency Citation | Summary | Type |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| TX - Impound - § 826.033. Restraint, Impoundment, and Disposition of Dogs and Cats. | V. T. C. A., Health & Safety Code § 826.033 | TX HEALTH & S § 826.033 | This Texas statute provides that a municipality or county may adopt ordinances or rules to require that each dog or cat be restrained by its owner and that any stray dog or cat be declared a public nuisance. Further, it can declare that each unrestrained dog or cat be detained or impounded by the local rabies control authority. Each stray dog or cat be impounded for a period set by ordinance or rule and a humane disposition be made of each unclaimed stray dog or cat upon its expiration. | Statute | |
| MN - Disaster Planning - Minnesota Emergency Operations Plan (MEOP) | Minnesota Emergency Operations Plan (2015) | The Minnesota Emergency Operations Plan contains references to both household pets and service animals. The plan defines "household pet" as "[a] domesticated animal, such as a dog, cat, bird, rodent (including a rabbit), or turtle that is traditionally kept in the home for pleasure rather than for commercial purposes and can travel in commercial carriers and be housed in temporary facilities. Household pets do not include reptiles (except turtles), amphibians, fish, insects/arachnids, farm animals (including horses), and animals kept for racing purposes." | Administrative | ||
| State v. Gaines | 64 Ohio App. 3d 230 (Oh App. 1990) | 64 Ohio App. 3d 230 |
Defendant, who pleaded guilty to 2 counts of dogfighting, challenged the constitutionality of the dogfighting statute and appealed a court-imposed forfeiture of cash and other seized items. The Court of Appeals ruled that: (1) dogfighting statute was not unconstitutionally vague or overbroad; (2) statute did not violate equal protection or constitute cruel and unusual punishment on ground that violation constitutes fourth-degree felony while violation of statute prohibiting other animal fights is only a fourth-degree misdemeanor; and (3) despite guilty plea, forfeiture of cash and other items was erroneous absent establishment of direct connection with defendant's illegal dogfighting activities.
|
Case | |
| US - AWA - Subpart F. Specifications for Warmblooded Animals Other Than | 9 C.F.R. § 3.125 to 142 | This subpart contains the Specifications for the Humane Handling, Care, Treatment, and Transportation of Warmblooded Animals Other Than Dogs, Cats, Rabbits, Hamsters, Guinea Pigs, Nonhuman Primates, and Marine Mammals. | Administrative | ||
| Nuijens v. Novy | 144 Misc.2d 453 (N.Y. 1989) | 144 Misc.2d 453, 543 N.Y.S.2d 887, 10 UCC Rep.Serv.2d 1179 (1989) |
Plaintiff brought a New York Small Claims Court action seeking recovery of the sum of $254.63, after a licensed veterinarian determined that plaintiff's newly purchased dog was unfit according to Article 35-B of the General Business Law. Specifically, plaintiff sought damages under two alternate theories: violation of the sale contract's five-day express warranty and violation of the implied warranty of merchantability. Due to the vet's initial diagnosis, plaintiff did not return the dog. The court held that plaintiff elected to forgo the express warranty by retaining the dog. With regard to the implied warranty of merchantability, the court found defendant is not a "person who deals in goods of the kind" to fall within the definition of merchant under the statute. |
Case | |
| United States v. Charette | Slip Copy, 2017 WL 1012974 (D. Mont. Mar. 15, 2017) |
In this case, Brian F. Charette filed an appeal after he was sentenced to six months of imprisonment and ordered to pay $5,000 in restitution for shooting and killing a grizzly bear in violation of the Endangered Species Act. Charette argued three issues on appeal: (1) that the trial court's denial of a jury trial violated his constitutional rights; (2) that the trial court erred in defining the elements of his charged offense; and (3) that the trial court erred in denying Charette's Rule 29 motion for a judgment of acquittal. The court found that the trial court did not err in denying a jury trial because Charette’s offense was considered a petty offense because it carried a maximum sentence of six months. For all crimes that are considered petty offenses, the Sixth Amendment right to a trial by jury is not triggered. Lastly, the court addressed Charette’s Rule 29 motion which calls for an acquittal if the essential elements of the offense are not proven beyond a reasonable doubt. In order for someone to be convicted of knowingly taking an endangered species the government must prove beyond a reasonable doubt, that: (1) the defendant knowingly killed the animal; (2) the animal was engendered; (3) the defendant had no permit to kill the animal; and (4) the defendant did not act in self-defense or defense of others. Charette argued that the government failed to prove that he did not have a permit to kill the grizzly bear. The court ultimately found that the government did prove this element on the basis that Charette told officers that he did not report shooting the bear because he did not want to deal with the “hassle.” The court found that it was reasonable to believe that had Charette had a permit to kill the grizzly bear, he would not have found reporting it to be a hassle and therefore the government sufficiently established this element. As a result, the court affirmed the lower court’s decision. |
Case | ||
| RI - Assistance Animals - Consolidated Assistance Animal Laws | Gen. Laws, 1956, § 4-13-4, § 4-13-16.1, § 39-2-13, § 31-18-14 - 16.1, § 34-37-4, § 40-9.1-1 - 1.7; 42-87-3; § 34-37.1-6 | RI ST § 4-13-4, § 4-13-16.1, § 39-2-13, § 31-18-14 - 16.1, § 34-37-4, § 40-9.1-1 - 1.7; 42-87-3; § 34-37.1-6 | The following statutes comprise the state's relevant assistance/service animal laws. | Statute | |
| UK - Pets - Abandonment of Animals Act 1960 | 1960 c. 43 |
For historical purposes only. Law has been repealed and/or replaced. An Act to prohibit the abandonment of animals in circumstances likely to cause unnecessary suffering thereto. |
Statute | ||
| NH - Hunting, Internet - § 207:8-a. Remote Control or Internet Hunting Prohibited | N.H. Rev. Stat. § 207:8-a | N.H. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 207:8-a | This statute prohibits engaging in internet hunting or assisting another person in internet hunting within the state of New Hampshire. Any person who violates this section is guilty of a class A misdemeanor if a natural person and guilty of a felony if any other person. In addition, the executive director may impose a civil penalty of not less than $10,000 for each violation of this section. | Statute | |
| Smithfield Foods, Inc. v. Miller | 241 F.Supp.2d 978 (S.D.Iowa,2003) |
The Court struck down an Iowa law that banned certain producers from owning or controlling livestock in Iowa based on the Dormant Commerce Clause. |
Case |