Results
Displaying 1 - 10 of 6754
| Title | Citation | Alternate Citation | Summary | Type |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| FL - Definitions - Animal Definitions | West's F. S. A. § 828.02 | FL ST § 828.02 | The word "animal" shall be held to include every living dumb creature. | Statute |
| IN - Cattle Slaughter - THE GOA, DAMAN AND DIU PREVENTION OF COW SLAUGHTER ACT, 1978 | 13 of 1978 | This provision, specific to the regions of Goa, Daman and Diu, prohibits the slaughter of cows. However, it does not prohibit the import of cow meat into these regions. Only cows that are suffering or are the subject of medical research may be slaughtered. In these cases, prior permission to slaughter the cow must be obtained by a veterinary officer or officer of the Animal Husbandry Department. Beef may not be sold in these regions. The government or local authority must maintain institutions for the care of 'uneconomic' cows. Offences under this Act are cognizable (offender can be arrested without a warrant) and non-bailable (bail is not a matter of right). | Statute | |
| Nikolic v. Seidenberg | 610 N.E.2d 177 (Ill. App. Ct. 1993) |
When the pet owner adopted a dog, she signed a contract agreeing to have her dog spayed at the vet's facility and to return the dog to the vet if it was sick. For days after the surgery the dog was ill so the other vet performed exploratory surgery and repaired a cut in the dog's intestine. The pet owner filed an action to recover the medical expenses and the lower court granted the vet's motion to dismiss. The reviewing court held that the language in the contract was not sufficiently clear and explicit to exculpate the vet from negligence because the vet was not a party to the contract and thus not a direct beneficiary of the contract. |
Case | |
| Ridley v. Sioux Empire Pit Bull Rescue, Inc. | 932 N.W.2d 576 (S.D., 2019) | 2019 S.D. 48 | Plaintiff Ridley was walking at a campground where she was attacked and injured by a pit bull type dog belonging to Sioux Empire Pit Bull Rescue, Inc. (SEPR) and in the care of Susan Tribble-Zacher and Harry Podhradsky. At the time, the dog was tethered to a tree near the Zacher and Podhradsky campsite. SEPR functions as a pit bull fostering organization that takes pit bulls from situations of abuse and neglect and places them with foster providers until a permanent home can be found. The lower court granted both Zacher's and Podhradsky's motions for summary judgment, which Ridley appeals in this instant case. On appeal, Ridley claims the trial court erred by incorrectly weighing the evidence by viewing the facts in a light most favorable to SEPR instead of plaintiff. The appellate court disagreed, finding that the motion for summary judgment was granted on the basis that the injury to Ridley was not foreseeable. The court rejected Ridley's argument that pit bull type dogs have inherently dangerous breed tendencies and, as a result, the attack was foreseeable and the keepers should be held to a higher standard of care. The court noted that South Dakota law does not support any "breed-specific standard of care," and that every dog is presumed tame so that the burden is on a plaintiff to prove otherwise. The dog who attacked Ridley had no prior history of aggression toward humans to make the attack on Ridley foreseeable. In addition, the fact that Zacher and Podhradsky may have violated a policy by SEPR to keep the dog in a two-week "shutdown period," where the dog would not travel outside the home, did not make it foreseeable that the dog would attack Ridley. Thus, the defendants did not breach their duty of reasonable care toward Ridley. The motions for summary judgment were affirmed. | Case |
| IN - Breeder - Article 21. Commercial Dog Breeder Regulation | I.C. 15-21-1-1 - 15-21-7-1 | IN ST 15-21-1-1 to 15-21-7-1 | The laws set forth requirements for commercial breeders in Indiana, defined as a person who maintains more than twenty (20) unaltered female dogs that are at least twelve (12) months of age. These laws do not apply to humane societies, rescue groups, certain service and hunting dog breeders, foster homes, or hobby breeders. A person may not operate a commercial dog breeder or broker operation without first registering with the state. Failure to register is a Class A misdemeanor. The chapter sets forth minimum standards of care and requires that a breeder comply with federal standards of care set forth in 9 CFR 3.1 through 9 CFR 3.12. Enforcement of the chapter will fall to the Indiana state board of animal health, which may seek injunctive relief and impose civil penalties ranging from $500 - $5,000 for violations. | Statute |
| CO - Dogs - Consolidated Dog Laws | C. R. S. A. § 35-43-126; § 13-21-124; § 24-80-910.5; § 25-4-601 to 615; § 30-15-101 to 105; § 33-3-106; § 33-4-101.3; § 33-6-128; § 35-42.5-101; § 35-50-112 | CO ST § 35-43-126; § 13-21-124; § 24-80-910.5; § 25-4-601 to 615; § 30-15-101 to 105; § 33-3-106; § 33-4-101.3; § 33-6-128; § 35-42.5-101; § 35-50-112 | These Colorado statutes represent the state's dog laws. There are provisions regarding civil actions against dog owners for dog bites, rabies control, animal control and licensing, and pertinent wildlife regulations, such as a general ban on harassing wildlife and destroying dens or nests. However, there is an exception making it permissible to take wildlife when it is causing excessive damage to property. | Statute |
| State v. Fockler | 480 P.3d 960 (Or.App., 2021) | 308 Or.App. 765 (Or.App., 2021) | Defendant appeals his conviction of animal abuse in the second degree (ORS 167.315). Neighbors witnessed him throwing his dog to the ground and called police. He argues that the trial court erred in admitting evidence that he previously threw a cat to the ground 13-years prior to the current incident and submission of this evidence created unfair prejudice. The prosecution contended that this evidence was admitted for a noncharacter/nonpropsensity purpose under OEC 404(3) to establish defendant's subjective awareness of the risk of throwing pets the ground. On appeal, this court noted that animal abuse in the second degree requires the state to prove that defendant was “aware of and consciously disregard[ed] a substantial and unjustifiable risk.” At trial, the state introduced evidence that, in 2003, defendant threw a cat of his apartment window causing injury to the cat because it had defecated on the apartment floor. Defendant argued that there was an insufficient connection between the cat throwing incident and the current charge, and that the probative value of the evidence was at "best minimalistic." However, this court found that the cat throwing evidence was offered for a nonpropensity purpose of knowledge where it was reasonable to infer that defendant had a subjective awareness of the risks in throwing a pet to the ground. Therefore, the trial court did not err in determining that the evidence was relevant for the noncharacter purpose of establishing knowledge under OEC 404(3). The appellate court found that the lower court did not abuse its discretion in admitting the evidence after hearing both sides and weighing the appropriate factors. Affirmed. | Case |
| United States of America v. Victor Bernal and Eduardo Berges | 90 F.3d 465 (11th Cir. 1996) |
Victor Bernal and Eduardo Berges were convicted of various crimes in connection with an attempt to export two endangered primates--an orangutan and a gorilla--from the United States to Mexico in violation of the Lacey Act Amendments of 1981 and the Endangered Species Act of 1973. While the main issue before the court was a downward departure in sentencing guidelines, the court found the purpose of the Lacey Act is protect those species whose continued existence is presently threatened by gradually drying up international market for endangered species, thus reducing the poaching of those species in their native countries. |
Case | |
| OR - Initiatives - Oregon Initiative 97 (Bans Body-Gripping Animal Traps) | Initiative 97 (2000) (failed) | This 2000 Oregon initiative would have eliminated the use of steel-jawed, leghold or other body-gripping traps and poisons. It was defeated by voters, 58.5% to 41.2%. | Statute | |
| Web site support - Styles | Basic page |