Results

Displaying 21 - 30 of 6639
Title Citation Alternate Citation Agency Citation Summary Type
State ex rel. Missouri Dept. of Conservation v. Judges of Circuit Court of Reynolds County 91 S.W.3d 602 (Mo. 2002)

Sixteen residents who violated portions of the wildlife code challenged the hearings that they received before a panel from the Department of Conservation, which were not conducted in an evidentiary fashion or recorded.  The Court found that, pursuant to the rulemaking authority granted under the State constitution to the Department of Conservation, the regulations provide for noncontested hearings unless the permitee is entitled by law to a contested hearing (a "contested case" is a proceeding before an agency in which legal rights, duties or privileges of specific parties are required by law to be determined after hearing).  The Court found that no such law applies to this case, citing a case that determined hunting is not a fundamental right.

Case
US - Dogs at Large - Chapter X. Presidio Trust. Part 1002. Resource Protection, Public Use and Recreation. § 1002.15 Pets. 63 FR 35697, June 30, 1998 36 C.F.R. § 1002.15 This rule sets outs the prohibitions for pets in the Presidio Trust. Administrative
KS - Maize - Breed - Pit Bull Ordinance MAIZE, KS., CITY CODE, §§ 2-401 - 2-420 (2003)

In Maize, Kansas, it is unlawful to keep, harbor, own or possess any pit bull dog unless the dog was registered on the date of publication of this article. A registered dog is subject to requirements, such as the uses of a leash and muzzle if not confined and “Beware of Dog” signs. Dogs that are a subject of a violation may be seized, impounded, and even killed, if necessary. A violation may result in a $200 to $500 fine and/or imprisonment for up to 30 days, as well as removal of the dog from the city.

Local Ordinance
2014 International Animal Law Conference

2014 II Global Animal Law Conference

 Policy
Connecticut v. Devon D. 321 Conn. 656, 138 A.3d 849 (2016) 321 Conn. 656 (2016), 2016 WL 3194779 (Conn.,2016) Devon D. was convicted of four counts sexual assault and three counts of risk of injury to a child upon allegations made by three of Devon D.’s biological children, C1, C2, and C3. He appealed his conviction on the grounds that the trial court had abused its discretion by having the three cases to be tried jointly and by permitting C1 to testify with a dog at her feet. The appellate court had accepted these arguments and reversed and remanded for a new trial, but the Supreme Court of Connecticut reversed the appellate court. The Connecticut Supreme Court concluded that “the trial court properly exercised its discretion in permitting the cases to be tried together because the evidence in all three cases was cross admissible,” and reversed on that issue. As to the appellate court’s determination that the trial court had abused its discretion in permitting a dog to sit near C1 during her testimony to provide comfort and support,” the Supreme Court also reversed, reinstating the verdict and judgment of the trial court. Case
State v. Cloutier 2003 ME 7 (Sup.Ct. Maine Jan. 21, 2003)

Defendant appealed from his conviction for "driving deer" under Maine statute § 7458(10) (among other convictions), contending that the statute was unconstitutionally vague.  The Court rejected defendant's argument, finding the version at issue here plainly tells people that if they participate in a group hunt and they organize or plan the hunt so that several people move in a coordinated fashion toward other members of the hunting party who by predesign are standing or moving toward the first group, in a planned effort to flush out the deer, they are hunting illegally.  With regard to the entrapment defense for the illegal transporting of deer, the Court found that although another hunter may have created the opportunity for Cloutier to commit the illegal transportation violation, "more is required for the entrapment defense than providing the opportunity to commit the crime." 

Case
CA - Circus - Article 5. Circus Cruelty Prevention Act West's Ann. Cal. Fish & G. Code § 2207 - 2210 CA FISH & G § 2207 - 2210 The California Circus Cruelty Prevention Act, effective in 2020, states that a person shall not sponsor, conduct, or operate a circus in this state that uses any animal other than a domestic dog, domestic cat, or domesticated horse, or exhibit or use any other animals than those animals. The term “circus” means a performance before a live audience in which entertainment consisting of a variety of acts, such as acrobats, aerialists, clowns, jugglers, or stunts, is the primary attraction or principal business, but excludes rodeos. Statute
Derecho Animal Volume 6 Núm 4

Tabla de contenidos

 

Editorial

 

El Derecho Animal en 2015

Teresa Giménez-Candela

PDF

PDF (EN)

 Policy
Kinara v. Jamaica Bay Riding Academy, Inc. 783 N.Y.S.2d 636 (N.Y., 2004) 2004 N.Y. Slip Op. 07464

Plaintiff was kicked by a horse ridden by her friend while trail riding.  Plaintiff sued the Defendant who owned the horse and trail Plaintiff was riding on.  The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of the Defendant and the Court of Appeals affirmed the decision holding Plaintiff assumed the risk.

Case
Williams v. Hill 658 So.2d 381 (Ala.,1995)

In this Alabama case, a motorcyclist and passenger were injured when they collided with defendant's dog while traveling on public roadway and brought an action for damages. The Circuit Court, Elmore County granted defendant's motion for summary judgment and the motorcyclist and passenger appealed. The Court held that there is no recover at common law, as no negligence was shown. The Court would not accept the proposal that all owners should be charged with the knowledge that dogs will chase cars.   “We hold that the owner of a dog may not be charged with the general knowledge that all dogs chase motor vehicles, and therefore that the law will not impute such general knowledge to dog owners in actions for injuries incurred. We, therefore, affirm the defendant's summary judgment.”

Case

Pages