Results
| Title | Citation | Alternate Citation | Summary | Type |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| IN - Veterinary - Article 38.1. Veterinarians. | I.C. 25-38.1-1-1 to 25-38.1-5-5 | IN ST 25-38.1-1-1 to 25-38.1-5-5 | These are the state's veterinary practice laws. Among the provisions include licensing requirements, laws concerning the state veterinary board, veterinary records laws, and the laws governing disciplinary actions for impaired or incompetent practitioners. | Statute |
| People v. Flores | 2007 WL 1683610 (Cal. App. 4 Dist.) | Not Reported in Cal.Rptr.3d |
Defendants were tried for allegedly invading an eighty-year-old woman's home and stealing, at gun point, and holding ransom eight seven-week-old puppies and two adult female Yorkshire terriers which she bred for the American Kennel Club for about $3,000 each. The jury held the defendants responsible for 18 counts of various crimes, including robbery, grand theft dog, elder abuse, conspiracy and cruelty to animals, inter alia. The appellate court reversed the counts of grand theft dog which were improperly based on the same conduct as the robbery conviction, reduced the sentence on the counts for abuse of an elder, and otherwise found no additional errors. |
Case |
| RI - Education - § 16-22-20. Animal dissection and vivisection--Right to refuse--Alternate learning project required | Gen. Laws, 1956, § 16-22-20 | RI ST § 16-22-20 | This Rhode Island law provides that parents or legal guardians of any student in a public or nonpublic primary or secondary school may refuse to allow their child to dissect or vivisect any vertebrate or invertebrate animal, or any part of a vertebrate or invertebrate animal. Students who refuse shall not be discriminated against for not participating in dissection and shall be offered an alternative method of learning the material. | Statute |
| CO - Impound - Article 4. Disease Control | C. R. S. A. § 25-4-610 | CO ST § 25-4-610 | This Colorado statute provides that it is unlawful for any owner of any dog, cat, other pet animal, or other mammal which has not been inoculated as required by the order of the county board of health or board of health of a health department to allow it to run at large. The health department or health officer may capture and impound any such dog, cat, other pet animal. | Statute |
| WI - Chickens, transport - 134.52. Shipment of chickens | W. S. A. 134.52 | WI ST 134.52 | This Wisconsin statute requires that poultry not be overcrowded and the shipping container must be at least 13 inches in high on the inside and covered at the top in a way that prevents the chickens from getting caught in the top. | Statute |
| United States of America v. Lawrence J.Romano | 929 F.Supp. 502 (D. Mass. 1996) |
On July 7, 1995, a grand jury returned an eight-count indictment against the defendant charging him with violations of the Lacey Act; defendant has filed a motion to dismiss the indictment. The court found that the Lacey Act embodies Congress' valid exercise of commerce power even when applied to a recreational hunter who purchased hunting guide services in violation of state law. |
Case | |
| PA - Ordinances - § 23144. To tax and destroy dogs | 53 P.S. § 23144 | PS ST 53 P.S. § 23144 | This briefly worded Pennsylvania statute presumably gives municipalities the authority "[t]o regulate and provide for taxing the owners and harborers of dogs, and to destroy dogs found at large contrary to any ordinance." | Statute |
| GA - Wildlife rehabilitation - Chapter 2. Licenses, Permits, and Stamps Generally | Ga. Code Ann., § 27-2-22 | GA ST § 27-2-22 | This Georgia law makes it unlawful for any person to keep sick or injured wildlife without first obtain a wildlife rehabilitation permit from the state department. | Statute |
| State v. Dan | 20 P.3d 829 (Or. 2001) | 172 Or.App. 645 (Or. 2001) |
This is an appeal of a circuit court decision in an aggravated animal abuse case. A defendant was convicted in circuit court of aggravated animal abuse and other charges. On appeal, the Court of Appeals held that the defendant's testimony that he loved his children more than the dog he shot was not evidence of his character, thus the evidence offered by the state in rebuttal (that the defendant assaulted his spouse) was not admissible and not harmless error by the trial court. |
Case |
| CASO 02437-2013 JANE MARGARITA CÓSAR CAMACHO Y OTROS CONTRA RESOLUCION DE FOJAS 258 | CASO 02437-2013 | Plaintiff, a blind woman, brought a constitutional grievance against the decision issued by the Fifth Civil Chamber of the Superior Court of Justice of Lima on January 15, 2013. This decision denied the action of protection after Defendants denied entry of Plaintiff's guide dog at their supermarkets. The Constitutional Tribunal ordered that the blind were allow to enter to the supermarkets with their guide dogs. | Case |