Results
| Title | Citation | Alternate Citation | Summary | Type | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ASSOCIACAO SANTUARIO DE ELEFANTES BRASIL | 1001993-45.2019.8.11.0024 | This case from Brazil concerns the elephant named "Ramba." Ramba is a former circus elephant who spent more than 30 years at circuses in Chile and Argentina. On October 18, 2019, she arrived at Santuário de Elefantes do Brasil (Brazil Elephants Sanctuary) after a 73 hour trip all the way from Chile. Before Ramba was transferred, Judge Leonísio Salles de Abreu Junior, from the 1st Civil Court at Chapada dos Guimarães, the region where the sanctuary is located in Mato Grosso , Brazil, made a ruling changing her status from a mere "good." The judge prohibited the local Government from charging the sanctuary R$ 50.000 (approximately US $ 13.00) in a tax on movement of goods finding that Ramba is not a thing, and is not a subject to importation good tax. According to an article at https://www.ambientesecom.net/2019/10/24/groundbreaking-decision-of-brazilian-judge-for-captive-elephant, the judge said further, "Her position, far from being a commodity (as she was in the life of exploitation to what she was submitted to by her former owners), is now that of a guest, who seeks for a new destination on the margins of what human evil has already caused her." Attached case is in Portuguese. | Case | |||||||
| TX - Hunting - § 62.0125. Harassment of Hunters, Trappers, and Fishermen | V. T. C. A., Parks & Wildlife Code § 62.0125 | TX PARKS & WILD § 62.0125 | This law represents Texas' hunter harassment law, also known as the Sportsman's Rights Act. Under the section, a person may not intentionally interfere with another person lawfully engaged in the process of hunting or catching wildlife, or intentionally harass, drive, or disturb any wildlife for the purpose of disrupting lawful hunting. Violation is a Class B misdemeanor. It is an affirmative defense to prosecution that the defendant's conduct is protected by the right to freedom of speech under the constitution of this state or the United States. | Statute | ||||||
| Zageris v. Whitehall | 594 N.E.2d 129 (Ohio App. 10 Dist.,1991) | 72 Ohio App.3d 178 |
The single-family residence property owner and owner of dogs kept on property filed suit for declaratory judgment, petition for habeas corpus, and civil rights claims against city based on city's enforcement of ordinance prohibiting number of dogs on property. He then appealed the ruling in favor for the city. The Ohio Court of Appeals held that the local ordinance limiting number of dogs on single family property was a nuisance and not zoning measure and consequently a valid exercise of city's police power. |
Case | ||||||
| NV - Cruelty - Consolidated Cruelty Statutes | N. R. S. 574.010 to 574.550; N.R.S. 202.487; N.R.S. 201.455 | NV ST 574.010 to 574.550; N.R.S. 202.487 | This comprehensive section comprises the Nevada anti-cruelty statutes. The section first empowers private prevention of cruelty to animals societies and outlines their powers and responsibilities, including the power to arrest. Under this section, "animal" does not include the human race, but includes every other living creature. Animal cruelty, as described in Section 574.100, prohibits the overdriving, overloading, torture, cruel beating or unjustifiable injuring, maiming, mutilation or killing of an animal, as well as the deprivation of necessary sustenance, food or drink. The first offense under this section is a misdemeanor with enhancement to a felony for a third or subsequent convictions. Animals fighting is also prohibited under the section, with enhanced sentences for subsequent convictions. Other specific crimes include mistreatment of dogs, abandonment of animals, poisoning (although the section does not prohibit the destruction of "noxious animals"), and basic requirements for the care of dogs and cats kept in kennels or sold by pounds or pet shops. | Statute | ||||||
| Friesen v. Saskatchewan Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals | 2008 CarswellSask 438 | 2008 SKQB 150 |
An animal protection officer received a complaint that two dogs were not receiving proper care. Officer Barry Thiessen, an animal protection officer employed by the S.S.P.C.A., observed that dogs appeared malnourished and in distress from lack of food and water. Upon returning the next day, Thiessen determined that the conditions were unchanged and the dogs were then seized pursuant to the warrant. The appellant dog owner brought an application for declaration that the officer seized dogs in contravention of an owner's rights under s. 8 of Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, and in excess of officer's authority. In dismissing his application, the court found that the warrant was lawfully obtained pursuant to provisions of the Animal Protection Act, 1999. The officer had a legitimate reason to come to property of the dog owner to investigate after he received a complaint, and it was there that he saw the dogs’ condition in "plain view" according to the court. |
Case | ||||||
| Settle v. Commonwealth | 55 Va.App. 212, 685 S.E.2d 182 (Va.,2009) | 2009 WL 4030930 (Va.App.) |
The defendant-appellant, Charles E. Settle, Jr., was convicted of two counts of inadequate care by owner of companion animals and one count of dog at large under a county ordinance, after Fauquier County Sherriff's officers were dispatched to his home on multiple occasions over the course of one calendar year in response to animal noise and health and safety complaints from his neighbors. Consequently, all of the affected dogs were seized from Settle and relocated to local animal shelters. The trial court also declared three of the animals to be dangerous dogs pursuant to another county ordinance. The Court of Appeals of Virginia held that: (1) because the forfeiture of dogs was a civil matter the Court of Appeals lacked subject matter jurisdiction and was not the proper forum to decide the case; (2) that Settle failed to join the County as an indispensible party in the notice of appeal from conviction for the county ordinance violation; and (3) that the evidence was sufficient to identify Settle as the owner of the neglected companion animals. |
Case | ||||||
| IA - Impoundment - 351.37. Dogs running at large--impoundment--disposition | I. C. A. § 351.37 | IA ST § 351.37 | This Iowa statute provides that a dog shall be impounded by a local board of health or law enforcement official if the dog is running at large and the dog is not wearing a valid rabies vaccination tag. The statute requires that written notice be sent to the owner (if the owner's name can be reasonably determined from a tag or other source) who then has seven days to redeem the dog before it is euthanized. | Statute | ||||||
| CA - Horse tack - § 597k. Bristle bur, tack bur, etc.; use on animals | West's Ann. Cal. Penal Code § 597k | CA PENAL § 597k | This section makes it a misdemeanor to use a bristle bur, tack bur, or similar device, to be used on a horse or any other animal. A violation is punishable with imprisonment and/or imprisonment. | Statute | ||||||
| AZ - Initiatives - Proposition 201 (cockfighting) | Proposition 201 (1998) | Proposition 201 would amend state law to create the crime of cockfighting. Cockfighting would be classified as a class 5 felony, generally punishable by a possible fine of up to $150,000 and a possible prison term ranging from nine months to two years. Presence at a cockfight would be classified as a class 1 misdemeanor, generally punishable by a possible fine of up to $2,500 and a possible jail term of up to six months. This proposition would extend existing state law animal cruelty exemptions and defenses that apply to lawful hunting, ranching, farming, rodeos and related activities to also apply to cockfighting. The measure passed in 1998 with 68.1% of the vote. | Statute | |||||||
| Derecho Animal Volume 11 Núm 3 |
|
Policy |