Results
| Title | Citation | Alternate Citation | Summary | Type |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| CITES Conf. 9.24 |
This is the attempt by the Party States under CITES to define just what "endangered" might mean for different types of plants and animals. |
Treaty | ||
| People v. Chenault | 227 Cal. App. 4th 1503, review filed (Aug. 25, 2014) | 175 Cal. Rptr. 3d 1 (Cal.App.Dist.4, 2014), review filed (Aug. 25, 2014) | Darrell Chenault was convicted on 13 counts of lewd acts on a child under 14 years of age and sentenced to 75 years to life in prison. On appeal he contended that the trial court abused its discretion by allowing a support dog to be present during the testimony of two child witnesses without individualized showings of necessity, and that the presence of the dog was inherently prejudicial and violated his federal constitutional rights to a fair trial and to confront the witnesses against him. The appellate court concluded that a trial court has authority under Evidence Code section 765 to allow the presence of a therapy or support dog during a witness’s testimony.” The court did “not believe that the presence of a support dog is inherently more prejudicial than the presence of a support person,” citing the New York case of Tohom. Chinault argued that “individualized showings of necessity” should have been required for F. and C. before the support dog could be present in the courtroom. The appellate court concluded however that “a case-specific finding that an individual witness needs the presence of a support dog is not required by the federal Constitution,” for which Tohom was again cited. Based on the court's review of the record, the appellate court concluded that the trial court made implicit findings that the presence of Asta, the support dog, would assist or enable F. and C. to testify completely and truthfully without undue harassment or embarrassment. The court also took measures to reduce any possible prejudice to Chenault by setting forth logistics for the entry, positioning, and departure of the support dog, along with F. and C., during jury recesses so the dog was as unobtrusive and least disruptive as reasonably possible. The judgment was affirmed. | Case |
| Vermont Laws: Act 34: 1846 | 1846 Vt. Acts & Resolves 34 | Act 34 from 1846 concerns the amendment of the statute entitled "Offences against private property." Specifically, the act concerns the statutes that covers cruelty to animals and larceny of animals. | Statute | |
| DE - Newark - Chapter 5: Animals (Article II: Horses) | The Code of the City of Newark, 1970 §§ 6.12.010 - 6.12.100 5-19 to 5-21 |
In Newark, Delaware, a person is prohibited from riding, driving, or leading a horse on the city's sidewalks, but may ride a horse on a city street's bicycle path. Additionally, a person is prohibited from riding, driving, or leading a horse in a reckless, disorderly, or careless manner through or over any of the streets or private property in the city. Penalties for violating these provisions are provided. |
Local Ordinance | |
| In re: MARJORIE WALKER, d/b/a LINN CREEK KENNEL | 2006 WL 2439003 (U.S.D.A.) |
Judicial Officer affirmed the Administrative Law Judge's decision that Marjorie Walker, d/b/a Linn Creek Kennel, violated the regulations of the Animal Welfare Act. The Judicial Officer stated that the Animal Welfare Act provides factors that must be considered when deciding the amount of civil penalty, and that the ability to pay the penalty is not a factor. Respondent was ordered to cease and desist from violating the regulations and standards, pay a $14,300 civil penalty, and the license was revoked . |
Case | |
| CO - Restaurant - 25-4-1615. Pet dogs in retail food establishments | C.R.S.A. § 25-4-1615 | CO ST § 25-4-1615 | This 2020 Colorado law allows a person to have a pet dog in an outdoor dining area of a retail food establishment if several conditions are met (including, but not limited to, the presence of a separate entrance for the dogs and their owners, requiring owners to keep dogs on leashes or in pet carriers, and not allowing the dogs on furniture or fixtures). The law allows a retail food establishment to elect not to allow dogs in its outdoor dining area. In addition, the governing body of a city, county, or city and county may prohibit the presence of pet dogs in outdoor dining areas of retail food establishments located within the governing body's jurisdiction | Statute |
| KY - Initiatives - Right to Hunt | 2012 Amendment | This measure proposes to amend the Constitution of Kentucky to create a right to hunt, fish, and harvest nonthreatened species using traditional methods. It passed by 84.5% of the vote. | Statute | |
| WV - Impound - § 19-20-8. Impounding and disposition of dogs; costs and fees | W. Va. Code, § 19-20-8 | WV ST § 19-20-8 | This West Virginia statute provides that dogs seized and impounded as provided in this article shall be kept housed and fed in the county dog pound for five days after notice of seizure and impounding has been given or posted. Upon expiration this time period, all dogs which have not previously been redeemed by their owners shall be sold or humanely destroyed (this statute outlines what constitutes "humanely destroyed"). The owner may, at any time prior to the expiration of five days retrieve his or her dog by paying the requisite fees and satisfying any other provisions. | Statute |
| Stephanski v. Wimpy | Complaint against a vet. for malpractice. Plaintiff's dog died after it was neutered. Plaintiff sought non-economic damages. | Pleading | ||
| R. v. Senior | [1899] 1 QB 283 |
Held: The word "wilfully", when used in the context of an offence prohibiting cruelty to children, "means that the act is done deliberately and intentionally, not by accident or inadvertence, but so that the mind of the person who does the act goes with it" ( per Lord Russell of Killowen C.J.). Note: the word "wilfully" is occasionally an element of animal welfare offences, such as that of wilfully, without any reasonable cause or excuse, administering a poisonous drug or substance to an animal (Protection of Animals Act 1911, s 1(1)(d)). |
Case |