Results
Displaying 91 - 100 of 6638
| Title | Citation | Alternate Citation | Agency Citation | Summary | Type | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| NV - Horses, wild - 504.490. Unlawful acts; penalty | N.R.S. 504.490 | NV ST 504.490 | This Nevada law prohibits any unauthorized person from doing certain acts with regard to wild horses such as removing them from public lands, harassing wild horses, or using aircraft or a motor vehicle to hunt wild horses (among other listed actions). Violation is a gross misdemeanor. A person who willfully and maliciously kills a wild horse is guilty of a category C felony. | Statute | ||||||||
| US - AWA - Animal Welfare Act Decisions |
This document contains references to both court decisions and administrative proceedings under the Animal Welfare Act on a section by section basis. |
Statute | ||||||||||
| State v. Gerberding | 767 S.E.2d 334 (N.C. Ct. App. 2014) | 2014 WL 6907352 (N.C. Ct. App. 2014) | After stabbing and slicing a dog to death, defendant was indicted for felonious cruelty to animals and conspiracy to commit felonious cruelty to animals. She was tried and found guilty of both counts before a jury. The trial court sentenced defendant to a term of 5 to 15 months for the felonious cruelty to animal conviction, and 4 to 14 months for the conspiracy conviction with both sentences suspended for a term of 18 months probation. Defendant appealed on the basis that the trial court erred on its instructions to the jury. After careful consideration, the North Carolina Court of Appeals held that the trial court properly instructed the jury according to the North Carolina pattern jury instructions. Further, the trial court responded appropriately to the question posed by the jury regarding the jury instructions. Accordingly, the appeals court held that the defendant received a fair, error-free trial. Judge Ervin concurs in part and concurs in result in part by separate opinion. | Case | ||||||||
| Indiana v. Massachusetts | 202 L. Ed. 2d 564, 139 S. Ct. 859 (2019) | 139 S.Ct. 859 (Mem) (U.S.,2019) | A coalition of multiple states filed a lawsuit against Massachusetts in the U.S. Supreme Court. Thirteen states, Indiana, Alabama, Arkansas, Louisiana, Missouri, Nebraska, North Dakota, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Texas, Utah, West Virginia, and Wisconsin, filed suit against the state of Massachusetts in response to the animal welfare laws created by Massachusetts Question 3. The states claimed to have direct standing to challenge the Massachusetts law because state agencies and instrumentalities own and operate farms that are subject to the Massachusetts law and wish to continue to sell products to other states, including Massachusetts. The states also claimed parens patriae standing on behalf of farmers and consumers within their borders that would be affected by the Massachusetts law. The plaintiff states filed suit in the U.S. Supreme Court requesting that the Court declare the Massachusetts law unconstitutional. The Court denied the motion for leave to file a bill of complaint because hearing the case would not be an appropriate use of the Court’s original jurisdiction. The Court stated that, in order to resolve plaintiff’s challenge and address the issues of standing and the merits of the case, the Court would need to resolve complex factual disputes. The Court reasoned that such disputes are better suited to resolution in federal district court, not the U.S. Supreme Court. | Case | ||||||||
| Justice for Animals, Inc. v. Lenoir County SPCA, Inc. | 168 N.C. App. 298, 607 S.E.2d 317 aff'd on other grounds, 360 N.C. 48, 619 S.E.2d 494 (2005) | 2005 WL 221226 (N.C. 2005) |
An animal control facility's practice of euthanizing feral cats without holding them for 72 hours was challenged by a non-profit organization. The animal control facility's method for determining if a cat is feral consisted only of poking the animal and gaging its reaction. The trial court dismissed the claim, but the Court of Appeals reversed the decision. |
Case | ||||||||
| Derecho Animal Volume 12 Núm 2 |
|
Policy | ||||||||||
| IL - Exotic pets - Act 68. Herptiles-Herps Act | 510 ILCS 68/1-1 to 510 ILCS 68/110–5 | IL ST CH 510 § 68/1-1 to IL ST CH 510 § 68/110–5 | Under the Herptiles-Herps Act reptiles and amphibians are exempt from the definition of “aquatic life” under the Fish and Aquatic Life Code. All rules and enforcement actions under the Illinois Conservation Law and the dangerous animals statutes related to reptiles and amphibians are now covered exclusively by this Act. | Statute | ||||||||
| MT - Dog - Dogs Act | Act XXI of 1985, Amended by VII of 1990 |
The Dogs Act was originally enacted in 1985. It provides that a person keeping a dog over the age of six months must obtain a licence for the dog. If a person does not have a licence for the dog, he or she shall be guilty of a criminal offence and will be liable to the punishment of a fine ( ammenda ) of five liri. |
Statute | |||||||||
| Beasley v. Sorsaia | 880 S.E.2d 875 (2022) | 247 W.Va. 409 (W.Va., 2022) | Petitioner was charged with animal cruelty in West Virginia. The incident stemmed from 2020 where humane officers in Putnam County seized several horses and a donkey that were denied “basic animal husbandry and adequate nutrition[.]” After the seizure, petitioner claimed the magistrate lacked jurisdiction to dispose of the case because farm animals are excluded under the Code. That motion was granted by the magistrate and the animals were returned to the petitioner. After a short period of time, petitioner was charged with six counts of criminal animal cruelty and again the magistrate dismissed the complaint. However, the magistrate stayed the dismissal on the State's motion so that the circuit court could determine whether § 61-8-19(f) excludes livestock. The circuit court agreed that the section encompasses livestock from inhumane treatment and the magistrate was prohibited from dismissing the complaint. Petitioner now appeals that decision here. This court first examined the anti-cruelty statute finding that the structure of the exception under subsection (f) refers back to the conditional phrase that ends in "standards" for keeping the listed categories of animals. The court disagreed with the petitioner's claim of a "blanket exclusion" for livestock since the Commissioner of Agriculture has promulgated rules that govern the care of livestock animals that includes equines. The court rejected petitioner's attempt to parse the placement of clauses and antecedents to support her claim. The court held that § 61-8-19(f) establishes an exclusion for farm livestock only when they are “kept and maintained according to usual and accepted standards of livestock ... production and management." The circuit court's writ of prohibition was affirmed and the matter was remanded. | Case | ||||||||
| NH - Exotic Pets - Part FIS 804. Possession of Wildlife | NH ADC FIS 804.01 - .07 | N.H. Code Admin. R. Fis 804.01 - .07 | Under these New Hampshire regulations, a permit to possess wildlife shall not be required for any person to possess wildlife designated as non-controlled (species such as aquarium fish, amphibians, reptiles except for alligators, crocodiles, and venomous species, many pet birds, small pet mammals like gerbils and hamsters, and certain ungulates). However, no person shall be issued a permit to possess wildlife that has been designated as prohibited. These prohibited species include, among others, zebra mussels, non-indigenous crayfish, walking catfish, and the white amur. A person must possess a permit to possess any live wildlife, or their hybrids, designated as controlled. Table 800.2 lists the controlled species which include many wild turtles and salamanders, alligators, crocodiles, badgers, bears, cougars, coyotes, elephants, kangaroos, big cats, and large primates such as chimpanzees and gorillas. Any person who has legally acquired and possesses wildlife under a valid permit in 1992, and continuously since, and such wildlife is now designated as prohibited or controlled, shall be issued a permit to possess such wildlife. | Administrative |