Results
Displaying 21 - 30 of 6638
| Title | Citation | Alternate Citation | Summary | Type |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cat and Feral Cat Issues | Policy | |||
| Ocean Mammal Inst. v. Gates | Slip Copy, 2008 WL 2185180 (D.Hawai'i) |
Plaintiffs sued the Navy over the use of sonar; the Plaintiffs feared that the sonar would kill whales and other marine life. This case dealt with the required production of documents the Defendant claimed were privileged and or work product material. The Court found that the Defendant must hand over the material to the Plaintiffs because the documents were not in fact privileged. |
Case | |
| VA - Hunting - § 29.1-530.3. Remote hunting prohibited; penalty | VA Code Ann. § 29.1-530.3 | VA ST § 29.1-530.3 | Under this Virginia statute, it is unlawful to engage in computer-assisted remote hunting or provide or operate a facility that allows others to engage in computer-assisted remote hunting if the wild animal or wild bird being hunted or shot is located in the Commonwealth. A violation is guilty of a Class 1 misdemeanor. | Statute |
| Northern Ireland - Wildlife - Wildlife and Natural Environment Act (Northern Ireland) 2011 | 2011 Chapter 15 | This Act provides various protections to certain wild animals, and prohibits facilitating, attending or participating in hare coursing events. | Statute | |
| WY - Impound - § 33-30-215. Disposition of unclaimed animals in custody of veterinarians; | W. S. 1977 § 33-30-215 | WY ST § 33-30-215 | This Wyoming statute states that any animal placed in the custody of a licensed veterinarian for treatment, boarding, or other care, which is then unclaimed by its owner for a period of more than ten days after written notice is given to the owner at his or her last known address, shall be deemed to be abandoned. It may then be turned over to the nearest humane society or dog pound in the area where it may be disposed of as the shelter sees fit. | Statute |
| 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 | |
| SC - Hunting, Internet - § 50-11-95. Computer-assisted remote hunting and remote hunting | Code 1976 § 50-11-95 | SD ST § 50-11-95 | This statute makes it illegal to establish or operate computer-assisted remote hunting facilities in South Carolina. It is also illegal to engage in computer-assisted remote hunting if either the animal hunted, or any device, equipment, or software to remotely control the firearm is located in this State. A person who violates this section is guilty of a misdemeanor and may be fined at least $5,000 and/or imprisoned for up to one year. | Statute |
| City of Delray Beach v. St. Juste | 989 So.2d 655 (Fla.App. 4 Dist. 2008) | 2008 WL 2261598 (Fla.App. 4 Dist.), 33 Fla. L. Weekly D1456 | In this Florida case, the city of Delray Beach appealed from a judgment for damages in favor of appellee plaintiff, who was injured by two loose dogs. The theory of liability was based on the city's knowledge, from prior complaints, that these dogs were loose from time to time and dangerous. The plaintiff suggested that the city's failure to impound the dogs after prior numerous complaints contributed to the attack. The court concluded that decisions made by the city's animal control officer and police to not impound the dogs were discretionary decisions, and therefore the city was immune. | Case |
| MD - Immunity - § 5-614. Veterinary aid, care or assistance | MD Code, Courts and Judicial Proceedings, § 5-614 | MD CTS & JUD PRO § 5-614 | This law gives immunity to certain licensed professionals including veterinarians, medical care licensees, first responders, and certain local government employees for providing veterinary aid, care, or assistance (without a charging a fee) to animals at the scene of an emergency or in transit to a veterinary facility. The listed persons under the statute are not civilly liable for any act or omission in giving any veterinary aid, care, or assistance to an animal where the owner or custodian of the animal is not available to grant permission. | Statute |
| Justice v. State | 532 S.W.3d 862 (Tex. App. 2017) | 2017 WL 4697920 (Tex. App. Oct. 19, 2017) | In this Texas appeal, defendant Brent Justice contends that his conviction for a single count of cruelty to a nonlivestock animal was based on insufficient evidence. The incident stemmed from defendant's filming of his co-defendant, Ashley Richards, torturing and killing of a newly-weaned puppy. Justice and Richards ran an escort business named "Bad Gurls Entertainment" that focused on the production and distribution of animal "crush" videos (fetish videos involving the stomping, torturing, and killing of various kinds of animals in a prolonged manner). The evidence that supported the conviction involved the confessions of both perpetrators and the video of the puppy being tortured and ultimately killed. On appeal, defendant argues that he cannot be found guilty since was not the principal involved in the offense. This court was unconvinced, finding that the evidence was sufficient to support a state jail felony since "[t]here is no shortage of evidence that appellant aided Richards in her cruelty," including handing Richards the knife and filming the killing. The one issue in defendant's "hybrid" pro se and represented brief on appeal that the court granted was related to a finding that defendant used a "deadly weapon." After the filing of initial briefs, the Court of Criminal Appeals in Prichard v. State, No. PD-0712-16, --- S.W.3d ---, 2017 WL 2791524 (Tex. Crim. App. June 28, 2017), held that “a deadly weapon finding is disallowed when the recipient or victim is nonhuman.” Thus, in the case at hand, the court deleted the deadly weapon finding since it was directed at the puppy rather than a human. The case was remanded for a new hearing on punishment only since the conviction was affirmed for a state jail felony. | Case |