Results
Displaying 61 - 70 of 6754
| Title | Citation | Alternate Citation | Agency Citation | Summary | Type |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| CO - Cruelty - Consolidated Cruelty/Animal Fighting Statutes | C. R. S. A. § 18-9-201 - 209; § 35-42-101 - 115 | CO ST § 18-9-201 - 209; § 35-42-101 - 115 | This Colorado section contains the anti-cruelty and animal fighting laws. A person commits cruelty to animals if he or she knowingly, recklessly, or with criminal negligence overdrives, overloads, overworks, torments, deprives of necessary sustenance, unnecessarily or cruelly beats, allows to be housed in a manner that results in chronic or repeated serious physical harm, carries or confines in or upon any vehicles in a cruel or reckless manner, or otherwise mistreats or neglects any animal. A person commits aggravated cruelty to animals if he or she knowingly tortures, needlessly mutilates, or needlessly kills an animal. Cruelty to animals is a class 1 misdemeanor and aggravated cruelty or a second conviction of animal cruelty is class 6 felony. This section also prohibits animal fighting (not limited to certain species such as dogs or chickens). Violation of this law results in a class 5 felony. This section also makes it illegal to own a dangerous dog and "tamper" with livestock. | Statute | |
| State ex rel. Zobel v. Burrell | 2005 WL 957908 (Mo. App. S.D. 2005) |
A trial court granted a local humane society permission to humanely dispose of horses placed in their custody by the Sheriff. A man filed petition for a writ of mandamus against the the trial judge and humane society to challenge the judge's order. The Court of Appeals reversed the trial court holding the trial court lacked jurisdiction over the Humane Society of Missouri. Opinion transferred to State ex rel. Zobel v. Burrell , 167 S.W.3d 688 (Mo., 2005). |
Case | ||
| Pron v. Tymshan | 79 Misc. 3d 1235(A), 192 N.Y.S.3d 917 (N.Y. Civ. Ct. 2023) | No. CV-011255-22NY, 79 Misc. 3d 1235(A), 192 N.Y.S.3d 917, 2023 N.Y. Slip Op. 50809(U), 2023 WL 4940439 (N.Y.City Civ.Ct., July 21, 2023) | This case was filed by the previous owner (plaintiff) of an Abyssinian cat named Murchik, who was seeking to recover possession of the cat. Plaintiff took care of the cat for several years, but eventually lost their job and their housing, and needed to give the cat to a friend (defendant) who agreed to house the cat while plaintiff was living in a shelter. Plaintiff and defendant eventually disagreed over who was the rightful owner of the cat, with plaintiff insisting that defendant was temporarily watching the cat and defendant insisting that they were the rightful owner of the cat. Plaintiff filed this case to repossess the cat. The court considered that New York law traditionally treated companion animals as personal property, and the party with the superior possessory right to the animal would be awarded the animal. However, the court was moving towards a "best for all concerned" standard, which would consider factors such as why each party would benefit from possession of the pet, and under whose possession the cat would have a better chance of thriving. The court found that plaintiff had the superior possessory right in the cat, since plaintiff was the original purchaser of the cat and there was no evidence that plaintiff intended to give the cat to defendant permanently. The court then looked to the other factors, and found that since plaintiff's living situation had stabilized, both parties were equally capable of ensuring the cat would thrive in their care. However, since plaintiff had cared for the cat for over five years, and defendant had cared for the cat for under a year, plaintiff had a slight advantage in showing they could care for the cat. Therefore, the court awarded possession of the cat to plaintiff. | Case | |
| TN - Wildlife - Chapter 1660-01-15 Rules and Regulations for Animal Importation. | TN ADC 1660-01-15-.01, .02 | Tenn. Comp. R. & Regs. 1660-01-15-.01 to .02 | These Tennessee regulations outline the guidelines for importing any live wild animal species obtained from outside the State of Tennessee. | Administrative | |
| Ducote v. Boleware | 216 So. 3d 934 (La.App. 4 Cir. 2/17/16), writ denied, 2016-0636 (La. 5/20/16), 191 So. 3d 1071 | 2016 WL 659022 (La.App. 4 Cir. 2/17/16), | This appeal arises from a personal injury lawsuit filed by Plaintiff Ducote, stemming from injuries she suffered as the result of a bite by defendant's cat. Plaintiff was walking down the sidewalk in New Orleans in the early evening when defendant's cat jumped on her left side and bit her hand causing injury. Plaintiff opted for the rabies immunoglobulin and the vaccine at the emergency room after defendant was unable to produce a rabies certificate (though the cat was later successfully quarantined). The trial court granted summary judgment upon motion for defendant and his homeowner's insurer. Plaintiff now appeals that decision. On appeal, the majority observed that liability of an animal owner (other than a dog) is provided by La. C.C. art. 2321, which gives a negligence standard based on knowledge of an animal's vicious propensities. The court found that there was no scienter on defendant's part as to the cat's dangerous nature (in fact, the cat was known to be a friendly cat with no previous incidents). Plaintiff suggests that liability should be based on a theory of negligence per se. Due to defendant's violation of city ordinances related to proof of rabies vaccination, he should be liable for damages. The court, however, rejected this, as Louisiana law does not recognize statutory negligence per se. Instead, in looking at negligence based on the set of facts, the court found plaintiff did not meet her burden. The trial court's decision was affirmed. | Case | |
| US - Livestock - Water Availability for Livestock at Slaughter Establishments | 1981 WL 103568 (F.R.) |
On September 12, 1980, the Food Safety and Quality Service requested information on the humane watering needs of livestock. The action was taken in response to industry petitions that questioned a departmental regulation that requires water to be available for animals in holding pens at slaughter establishments. The Agency has determined that the regulations requiring that water be available is holding pens will remain in effect, but notes that compliance with the regulations will not necessarily impose burdensome costs on the industry. |
Administrative | ||
| WA - Importation - Chapter 16-54. Animal Importation | Wash. Admin. Code 16-54-010 - 180 | WAC 16-54-010 to 180 | This set of regulations is the Washington Department of Agriculture's import requirements for various types of domestic, companion, wild, and exotic animals. | Administrative | |
| ND - Veterinarian Issues - Professional Conduct | ND ADC 87-05-02-01 | NDAC 87-05-02-01 | The following represents unprofessional conduct on behalf of a veterinarian and manifestly disqualifies a licensee from practicing veterinary medicine. Paragraph (9) states that failing to report inhumane treatment to animals, including staged animal fights or training events for fights, the veterinarian reasonably believed occurred constitutes unprofessional conduct. | Administrative | |
| GA - Dogfighting - Article 2. Gambling and Related Offenses. | Ga. Code Ann., § 16-12-37 | GA ST § 16-12-37 | Georgia's dogfighting statute states that any person who owns, possesses, trains, transports, or sells any dog with the intent that such dog shall be engaged in fighting with another dog, wagers money or anything of value on the result of such dogfighting, knowingly permits dogfighting on his or her premises, knowingly promotes or advertises an exhibition of fighting commits the offense of dogfighting. Violation of the law is a felony, with a mandatory fine of $5,000.00 or a mandatory fine of $5,000.00 in addition to imprisonment for not less than one year nor more than five years. On a second or subsequent conviction, such person shall be punished by imprisonment of not less than one nor more than ten years, a fine of not less than $15,000.00, or both such fine and imprisonment. Any person who is knowingly present only as a spectator at any place for the fighting of dogs shall, upon a first conviction thereof, be guilty of a misdemeanor of a high and aggravated nature. | Statute | |
| Newsome v. Erwin | 137 F.Supp.2d 934 (S.D. Ohio 2000) |
Plaintiff brought § 1983 action against county sheriff and others alleging that defendants violated his Eighth and Fourteenth Amendment rights when they shot and killed his pet lioness. |
Case |