Results
Displaying 6561 - 6570 of 6638
| Title | Citation | Alternate Citation | Summary | Type |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| CA - Declaw, debark - § 1942.7. Conditions on occupancy based on declawing or devocalizing animals | West's Ann.Cal.Civ.Code § 1942.7 | CA CIVIL § 1942.7 | This California law prohibits any owner or property manager from advertising a requirement, refusing occupancy of, or otherwise requiring a prospective tenant to declaw or devocalize any animal allowed on the premises. A city attorney, district attorney, or other law enforcement prosecutorial entity has standing to enforce this section and may sue for declaratory relief or injunctive relief for a violation of this section. Violation results in a civil penalty of not more than $1,000. | Statute |
| WV - Domestic Violence - § 48-27-503. Permissive provisions in protective order. | W. Va. Code, §§ 48-27-503; 48-27-702 | WV ST §§ 48-27-503; 48-27-702 | In West Virginia, the terms of a protective order may include awarding the petitioner the exclusive care, possession, or control of any animal owned, possessed, leased, kept or held by either the petitioner or the respondent or a minor child residing in the residence or household of either the petitioner or the respondent and prohibiting the respondent from taking, concealing, molesting, physically injuring, killing or otherwise disposing of the animal and limiting or precluding contact by the respondent with the animal. Furthermore, West Virginia mandates that law enforcement officers who suspect animal cruelty during an alleged incident of domestic violence must report that suspicion and the grounds therefor to the county humane officer within twenty-four hours of the response to the alleged incident of domestic violence. | Statute |
| SC - Ecoterrorism - Chapter 21. Farm Animal and Research Facilities Protection Act. | Code 1976 § 47-21-10 to 90 | SC ST § 47-21-10 to 90 | The set of law comprises South Carolina's Farm Animal and Research Facilities Protection Act. A person commits an offense if, without the effective consent of the owner, the person exercises control over an animal facility or the property located there, or if that person damages the facility or its property. A person also commits an offense if he or she enters a facility without the effective consent of the owner and remains concealed with the intent to disrupt or damage the enterprise conducted at the animal facility. Violation for disruption or damage to a facility or its property is a misdemeanor with a fine of up to $10,000 and/or 3 years imprisonment. Violation for illegal entry is a misdemeanor with a fine up to $5,000 and/or 1 year imprisonment. | Statute |
| CITY OF TOLEDO, Appellant, v. Paul TELLINGS, Defendant-Appellee. |
This is the Ohio Attorney General's amicus brief filed in the Supreme Court case of Toledo v. Tellings (871 N.E.2d 1152 (2007)). The Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals decision, finding that the state and the city have a legitimate interest in protecting citizens against unsafe conditions caused by pit bulls. |
Pleading | ||
| Rapa Ltd. v. Trafford Borough Council |
Section 2 of the Pet Animals Act 1951 states that a person shall be guilty of an offence if he "carries on a business of selling animals as pets in any part of a street or public place, [or] at a stall or barrow in a market". Small transparent cubes containing water and live fish were sold as novelty items, known as 'aquababies', from a barrow in a thoroughfare of a large indoor shopping mall. The Court found that this activity involved the carrying on of a business of selling pets in a "public place" and was therefore prohibited by section 2. |
Case | ||
| Casebook Update | The attached pdf file provides updated material for David Favre, Animal Law, 3rd edition (2019). This material may be accessed three different ways. The first list immediately below is of new material from newest to oldest. A second set is the table of contents with new material integrated. A third list is an index | Policy | ||
| England - Licensing - The Animal Welfare (Licensing of Activities Involving Animals) (England) Regulations 2018 | Animal Welfare Act (Licensing) Regulations 2018 | Legislation requiring businesses involving animals in England to obtain a licence to show they are meeting the welfare needs of the animals in their care. Includes dog kennels, cat boarding, dog breeders, pet sellers, horse riding schools and animal exhibitors. | Statute | |
| VA - Licenses - § 3.2-6524. Unlicensed dogs prohibited; ordinances for licensing cats | Va. Code Ann. § 3.2-6524 | VA ST § 3.2-6524 | This Virginia statute provides that it is unlawful for any person to own a dog four months old or older in the state unless such dog is licensed. With regard to cats, the governing body of any county, city or town may, by local ordinance, prohibit any person from owning a cat four months or older within such locality unless such cat is licensed. | Statute |
| OH - Ecoterrorism - Chapter 2923. Conspiracy, Attempt, and Complicity; Weapons Control. Corrupt Activity. | R.C. § 2923.31 - 2923.36 | OH ST § 2923.31 - 2923.36 | This Ohio law define "animal or ecological terrorism" as the commission of any felony that involves causing or creating a substantial risk of physical harm to any property of another, the use of a deadly weapon or dangerous ordnance, or purposely, knowingly, or recklessly causing serious physical harm to property and that involves an intent to obstruct, impede, or deter any person from participating in a lawful animal activity, from mining, foresting, harvesting, gathering, or processing natural resources, or from being lawfully present in or on an animal facility or research facility. | Statute |
| MO - Cameron - Breed - Sec. 5-102. Keeping of Pit Bull dogs prohibited (repealed 2016) | CAMERON, MO., CODE § 5-102 | Cameron, Missouri repealed its ordinance that prohibited the keeping of pit bull dogs on November 21, 2016. Before that, it was unlawful to keep, harbor, own or possess any Pit Bull dog as defined in the previous law. | Local Ordinance |