|AL - Impound - Destruction of impounded dogs and cats||Ala. Code 1975 § 3-7A-8||AL ST 3-7A-8||This Alabama statute provides that all dogs, cats, and ferrets which have been impounded for lack of rabies immunization, after due notice has been given to the owner as provided in Section 3-7A-7, may be humanely destroyed and disposed of when not redeemed by the owner within seven days. The owner may redeem the animal before destruction by paying the associated costs of vaccination (if no proof of prior vaccination) and impoundment.||Statute|
|NJ - Dog - Chapter 19. Dogs, Taxation and Liability for Injuries Caused by.||NJSA 4:19-15.1 to 4:19-15.33||NJ ST 4:19-15.1 to 4:19-15.33||These New Jersey statutes comprise the laws for licensing, impounding, appointment of animal control officers, and kennel/pet shop regulations. It also includes a provision that prohibits impounded animals from being sold or donated for experimentation, as well as pet sterilization provisions.||Statute|
|People v. McCree||2002 WL 276134 (Cal. 2002)||
Defendant was convicted, after a jury trial, of eight counts of possession and training of a
fighting dog and two counts of causing a dogfight
for gain. Defendant appealed. The Court of Appeal, held that: (1) prosecutor's cross-examination of defense witness was proper; (2) prosecutor's closing arguments were proper; and (3) evidence supported the convictions.
|IN - Wildlife - THE WILD LIFE (PROTECTION) AMENDMENT ACT, 2002||THE WILD LIFE (PROTECTION) AMENDMENT ACT, 2002, No. 16 of 2003||
This law comprises India's Wild Life (Protection) Amendment Act, 2002. According to the amended long title, it is "An Act to provide for the protection of wild animals, birds and plants and for matters connected therewith or ancillary or incidental thereto with a view to ensuring the ecological and environmental security of the country. " The Amendment Act also establishes the National Board for Wild Life.
|CA - Animal Defined - § 599b. Words and phrases; imputation of knowledge to corporation||West's Ann. Cal. Penal Code § 599b||CA PENAL § 599b||This statute defines words, such as "animal," as they are used in Title 14, the Malicious Mischief section, of the California Penal Code. Title 14 is where all of the California Penal Code sections pertaining to animal cruelty are found.||Statute|
|U.S. v. CITGO Petroleum Corp.||801 F.3d 477 (5th Cir. 2015)||2015 WL 5201185 (5th Cir., 2015)||CITGO was convicted of multiple violations of the Clean Air Act and its regulations, and the Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918 (“MBTA”). CITGO urged the 5th Circuit to reverse the Clean Air Act convictions because the district court erroneously instructed the jury about the scope of a regulation concerning “oil-water separators.” CITGO also contended that the MBTA convictions were infirm because the district court misinterpreted the statute as covering unintentional bird kills. The 5th Circuit agreed with both contentions, holding that CITGO's equalization tanks and air floatation device were not oil-water separators under the Clean Air Act's regulations and that “taking” migratory birds involved only “conduct intentionally directed at birds, such as hunting and trapping, not commercial activity that unintentionally and indirectly caused migratory bird deaths. The district court’s decision was reversed and remanded with instructions.||Case|
|Farm Sanctuary, Inc. v. Veneman||212 F.Supp.2d 280 (S.D.N.Y. 2002)||
Plaintiffs Farm Sanctuary, Inc. and Michael Baur filed this action seeking a declaratory judgment holding that the Secretary of Agriculture Ann Veneman and the United States Department of Agriculture must classify all downed livestock as adulterated pursuant to 21 U.S.C. § 342(a) and an injunction prohibiting the USDA from allowing non-ambulatory animals to be used for human consumption. Defendants have moved to dismiss the complaint, inter alia, on the grounds that plaintiffs lack standing to sue. For the reasons discussed, the Government's motion is granted.
|Brown v. Crocker||139 So.2d 779 (La. 1962)||
This action in tort was instituted by plaintiff, as the administrator of the estate of his minor son, against the defendant to recover the value of a quarter-horse mare and a stillborn colt, and for damages occasioned by shock and mental anguish suffered by the son, as well as for services of a veterinarian and medicines used in treatment of the mare following her wounding by a shotgun blast intentionally inflicted by the defendant. The Court of Appeal in upheld an award of $250 for shock and mental anguish experienced by the child who could not stop crying about the loss of his horse and the colt that never was. As the court stated, "Under the facts and circumstances, an award of $250 for shock and mental anguish suffered by the minor would, in our opinion, do justice between the parties."
|In Defense of Animals v. U.S. Dept. of Interior||648 F.3d 1012 (C.A.9 (Cal.),2011)||2011 WL 3559951 (C.A.9 (Cal.),2011)||
Plaintiff animal non-profits filed a Motion for a Temporary Restraining Order and/or Preliminary Injunction to stop the government from rounding up, destroying, and auctioning off wild horses and burros in the Twin Peaks Herd Management Area. Plaintiffs alleged that the government's actions violated the Wild Free–Roaming Horses and Burros Act and the National Environmental Policy Act. However, the initial phase of the plan sought to be enjoined (the roundup) had taken place. The court held that the interlocutory appeal from the denial of a preliminary injunction was moot because the roundup had already taken place.
|State v. Jacobs||Slip Copy (unpublished decision) 2015 WL 618098, 2015 Ohio App. LEXIS 4244 (Ct.App. 2015)||2015 -Ohio- 4353||The defendant, Michael Jacobs, was convicted of unlawful sexual conduct with a minor and corrupting another minor with drugs, receiving a prison sentence of four years. The victim testified with a “companion dog” at her feet. Among other assignments of error, Jacobs argued that he was denied his right to a fair trial because of the presence of the companion dog during the victim’s testimony. The child was under 15 at the time of the alleged abuse, but 17 years old when she testified. The Ohio appellate court concluded that the use of a companion dog in such a case was a matter of first impression in the state, though other comfort items, such as teddy bears had previously been used in similar situations in Ohio courts. To the defense’s objection that the witness was no longer under 15 at the time of her testimony, the appellate court stated that the defense had “failed to offer any authority to support the proposition that there is a certain age cut-off for the use of special procedures on behalf of alleged sexual abuse victims.” The court concluded that Ohio Evidence Rule 611(A), which provides that a trial court is to exercise “reasonable control over the mode and order of interrogating witnesses…” and to “protect witnesses from harassment or undue embarrassment,” was sufficiently flexible to allow the use of the dog during the trial. Having overruled all of Jacobs' assignments of error, the court affirmed the judgment of the Summit County Court of Common Pleas.||Case|