Results
| Title | Citation | Alternate Citation | Summary | Type |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| SC - Hunting - § 50-11-852. Unlawful to molest or kill birds of prey; bald eagles; penalties. | Code 1976 § 50-11-852 | SC ST § 50-11-852 | This statute prohibits the killing of any bird of prey, resulting in a misdemeanor conviction. If the bird is a bald eagle, the individual faces a maximum fine of up to $1,000 and one year in jail in addition to the revocation of hunting privileges for five years. | Statute |
| CITY OF TOLEDO, Appellant, v. Paul TELLINGS, Appellee. |
This is the City of Toldeo's Appellant 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 | ||
| Rogers v. Teignbridge District Council |
A planned event called "The Creepy Crawly Show" was to have been held at a racecourse and to have involved the display and sale of small exotic animals by a number of different breeders, dealers and enthusiasts. The event's organizer applied to the local council for a pet shop licence under the Pet Animals Act 1951. The application was refused on the ground that the event was prohibited by section 2 of the Act which states that a person is 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". The organizer's appeal to the local magistrates court was dismissed. Held: the holding of the event would have involved the carrying on a business of selling pets in a "public place". It would also have involved the selling of animals in a market. The event was therefore prohibited by section 2 and that it would have been unlawful for the local authority to have licensed it. |
Case | ||
| Animal Law Index Volume 4 |
Animal Law Review, Volume 4 (1998)
INTRODUCTIONTHE CONFLICT BETWEEN SPECIES IN AN EVER MORE CROWDED WORLD |
Policy | ||
| The Equine Identification (England) Regulations 2018 | The Equine Identification (England) Regulations 2018 | Owners have two years to ensure all equines born before 30th June 2009 are chipped. Some wild and semi-wild equids are exempt. Non-compliant owners risk being fined. | Statute | |
| VA - Licenses - § 3.2-6527. How to obtain license | Va. Code Ann. § 3.2-6527 | VA ST § 3.2-6527 | This Virginia statute describes the process under which an individual may obtain a dog or cat license. Generally, it states that any person may obtain a dog license or cat license if required by an ordinance by making oral or written application to the treasurer of the county or city in which such person resides, accompanied by the amount of license tax and current certificate of vaccination as required by this article. | Statute |
| OH - Veterinary - Chapter 4741. Veterinarians. | R.C. § 4741.01 - 4741.99 | OH ST § 4741.01 - 4741.99 | 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 |
| MO - Carthage - Breed - Sec. 4-5.1. Pit bulldogs prohibited. | CARTHAGE, MO., CODE § 4-5.1 |
In Carthage, Missouri, it is unlawful to keep, harbor, own or possess any pit bulldog as defined. An exception is made for pit bulldogs registered as of the effective day (Jan. 26, 1993), as long as the dog is properly confined or kept on a leash and wearing a muzzle. The owner must also take photographs of the dog for identification purposes. Any person violating the provisions may be fined up to $500. The dog may also be removed from the city. |
Local Ordinance | |
| LOUISVILLE & N. R. CO. v. WATSON | 208 Ala. 319 (1922) | 94 So. 551 (Ala., 1922) |
On November 2, 1920, on a “moonlit night”, plaintiff was fox hunting by a railroad track when his dog was hit by the train. Plaintiff claimed that defendant’s employee negligently ran over his dog while acting within the scope of his duties as an operator of the train. The Alabama Supreme Court affirmed a jury award of $50, and held that it was proper for the plaintiff to show the excellent hunting qualities displayed by this dog to determine its market value. |
Case |
| Missouri Primate Foundation v. People for Ethical Treatment of Animals, Inc. | Slip Copy, 2018 WL 1420239 (E.D. Mo. Mar. 22, 2018) | This matter is a motion of counterclaim by defendants Missouri Primate Foundation to dismiss PETA's (the counterclaim plaintiff) assertion that two chimpanzees were being held in conditions that deprived the chimpanzees of adequate social groups, space, and psychological stimulation, putting them at risk of and causing physical and psychological injury, such as deteriorated cardiovascular and musculoskeletal health, stress, anxiety and depression. PETA also alleges that the chimpanzees were denied a sanitary environment, proper ventilation, a healthy diet, and adequate veterinary care. PETA claimed that the Missouri Primate Foundation (MPF) (the counterclaim defendants) were holding the two chimpanzees in conditions that “harm” and “harass” the chimpanzees, thus violating the “take” prohibition of the Endangered Species Act (ESA). MPF's motion contends that PETA’s counterclaim is based on allegations that they failed to comply with the Animal Welfare Act, not the ESA. MPF further contends that because the chimpanzees at its facility were lawfully in captivity and under the auspices of the AWA as administered by the USDA–APHIS, so the chimpanzees cannot be subject to a “take” under the ESA. They further argued that PETA lacked standing as the AWA preempts or supersedes the ESA as to animals held at USDA licensed facilities. Because the AWA does not allow citizen suits, MPF argued, the case must be dismissed. After examining similar cases, this court concluded that claims under the AWA and ESA are complementary and do not conflict, and that the ESA protects captive animals regardless of whether the alleged violator is an AWA licensed entity. The court found that the allegations by PETA are sufficient at this stage of the case and issues of proof are reserved for trial. As such, the court denied the motions of the counterclaim defendants. | Case |