Results
Displaying 5931 - 5940 of 6639
| Title | Citation | Alternate Citation | Agency Citation | Summary | Type |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Morgan v. Marquis | 50 A.3d 1 (Me., 2012) | 2012 WL 3206773 (Me., 2012); 2012 ME 106 |
After being bit in the face from a dog she was caring for, the plaintiff sued the dog's owner on the theories of strict liability, negligence and statutory, 7 M.R.S. § 3961(1), liability. The superior court granted summary judgment in favor of the defendant on all claims rejecting plaintiff's claim that pit bull dogs are inherently abnormally dangerous dogs. Finding insufficient evidence that the defendant knew his dog was likely to bite someone, the Supreme Judicial Court of Maine affirmed the lower court's decision on the strict liability claim. However, the court vacated the lower court's decision towards the negligence and statutory liability claim because genuine issues of material fact remained. |
Case | |
| US - AWA - 2014 Public Law113-79 | 2014 PL 113-79 | The 2014 amendments to the Animal Welfare Act allows the Secretary of agriculture to define de minimis, as well as several grammatical changes. The public law also provides the prohibits anyone from allowing a person who has not attained the age of 16 from attending an animal fighting venture. | Statute | ||
| NM - Scientific - 19.35.6. Authorized Uses of Wildlife for Education, Law Enforcement, Research and Scientific Purposes | 19.35.6.1 - 17 NMAC | N.M. Admin. Code 19.35.6.1 - 17 | This New Mexico rule issued by the department of game and fish and all persons provides information on the taking and possession of protected wildlife for scientific and educational purposes. | Administrative | |
| NM - Ordinances - Chapter 77. Animals and Livestock | N. M. S. A. 1978, § 77-1-12 | NM ST § 77-1-12 | This New Mexico statute provides that each municipality and each county shall make provision by ordinance for the seizure and disposition of dogs and cats running at large and not kept or claimed by any person on their premises provided that it does not conflict with state law. | Statute | |
| MD - Fur - Title 10. Wildlife. | MD Code, Natural Resources, § 10-408.1 | MD NAT RES § 10-408.1 | This Maryland law restricts some forms of trapping. Specifically, it provides that a person, while trapping or attempting to trap animals, may not place, set, maintain, or operate any snares, body-gripping, or leghold traps within 150 yards of a permanent human residence. However, the restriction does not apply to body-gripping traps with a jaw spread of less than 6 inches that are placed, maintained, and operated completely submerged in water or snare-type traps used to catch rats or mice. | Statute | |
| Proyecto de Resolución del Amparo en Revisión 630/2017 - Mexico | Proyecto de Resolución del Amparo en Revisión 630/2017 | This is a draft of a withdrawn “Amparo” decision, but it is relevant as it highlights the connection between the human right to a healthy environment and the duty to protect animals. In particular, it sheds light on how this right influences the legal assessment of bullfighting’s legality. In this case, the plaintiff, Promociones y Espectáculos Zapaliname, S.A. de C.V., a company whose purpose is to organize bullfighting events, initiated a legal action, known as an “Amparo” against various individuals and governmental entities in the state of Coahuila. The complaint specifically targeted the State Governor, the State Congress, the Secretary of the Government, the State Director of the Official Newspaper, the State Secretary of the Environment, and the State Deputy Director of the Official Newspaper. The plaintiff alleged before the Coahuila’s Second District Court that the 2015 amendment to the law for the protection and dignified treatment of animals in Coahuila, which prohibited bullfighting and similar practices, as well as other associated regulations, infringed upon their rights to employment, property, and cultural expression. The court dismissed the case regarding article 20, fraction XIV of Coahuila’s law for the protection and dignified treatment of animals due to lack of legal interest as the application of these provisions was not substantiated and because such provisions were hetero-applicative. Therefore, the provisions were not applicable. The court also dismissed the “Amparo” regarding Article 20, fraction XIV of the same law. The plaintiff appealed the opinion before the Collegiate Court on Administrative and Civil Matters of the Eighth Circuit, which ordered transferring the case to the Fourth Collegiate Circuit Court of the Auxiliary Center of the Tenth Region. This court upheld the lower court’s decision, deeming the legal action non-justiciable. In addition, the court requested the revision of the case and transferred the case to the Supreme Court of Justice. The Second Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice heard the case de novo. In this opportunity, the court upheld the constitutionality of article 20, fraction XIV of Coahuila’s animal protection law. The judge held that, “[t]he protection of species is immersed within the very concept of the environment, since animals are part of those elements that comprise it.” The judge held that the right to a healthy environment encompasses the protection of animals, an element of the environment. With this decision, the court moves away from a pure property conception of animals. Moreover, the court underscores the existence of various laws that recognize the need to treat animals humanely and prohibit cruel treatment towards them. These laws include the Federal Animal Health Law, the General Law of Ecological Balance and Environmental Protection, the General Wildlife Law, and the Mexican Official NOM-033-SAG/ZOO-2014. It is important to note that, despite the absence of a national anti-cruelty law in Mexico, these regulations serve as a foundation for animal welfare, even though Mexico does not have a national anti-cruelty law. The court further states that this legal framework shows that the constitutional right to a healthy environment enables the ban on bullfighting established in the amendment of the Coahuila law the plaintiff seeks to invalidate. Such a law is a means to fulfill the general laws enacted to protect and treat animals with dignity. By allowing this cruel practice, the court also asserted that animals suffer and die for the sake of entertainment, which causes a detriment to the general societal interest to protect the human rights to a healthy environment related to the protection and conservation of species established in Article 4 of the Constitution. In addition, the court further stated that invalidating this amendment would constitute a regression that would diminish the need for governments to adopt gradual measures to protect animals. | Case | ||
| IN - Registration of Cattle Premises - THE PREVENTION OF CRUELTY TO ANIMALS (REGISTRATION OF CATTLE PREMISES) RULES, 1978 | The Rules, adopted under the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, provide for the registration of premises having five or more heads of cattle kept for the purpose of profit. The owner of the premises must apply for a certificate and the premises shall be open for inspection at all reasonable times. On premises where milch cattle are kept, a copy of Section 12 of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act must be displayed in the local language. The provision prohibits the performance of 'phooka' or 'doom dev '. | Statute | |||
| People v. Garcia | 29 A.D.3d 255 (N.Y.A.D. 1 Dept., 2006) | 2006 WL 771373 (N.Y.A.D. 1 Dept.), 812 N.Y.S.2d 66 |
In this New York case, the court, as a matter of first impression, considered the scope of the aggravated cruelty law (§ 353-a(1)) in its application to a pet goldfish. Defendant argued that a goldfish should not be included within the definition of companion animal under the statute because there is "no reciprocity in affection" similar to other companion animals like cats or dogs. In finding that the statute did not limit the definition as such, the court held that defendant's intentional stomping to death of a child's pet goldfish fell within the ambit of the statute. Accordingly, the judgment of the Supreme Court, New York County that convicted defendant of attempted assault in the second degree, criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree, criminal mischief in the third degree, assault in the third degree (three counts), endangering the welfare of a child (three counts), and aggravated cruelty to animals in violation of Agriculture and Markets Law § 353-a(1) was affirmed. |
Case | |
| Mexico Convention for the Protection of Migratory Birds and Game Mammals | TS 912 | Per Digest of Federal Resource Laws of Interest to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service: This 1936 treaty adopted a system for the protection of certain migratory birds in the United States and Mexico. Allows, under regulation, the rational use of certain migratory birds. Provides for enactment of laws and regulations to protect birds by establishment of closed seasons and refuge zones. Prohibits killing of insectivorous birds, except under permit when harmful to agriculture. Provides for enactment of regulations on transportation of game mammals across the United States-Mexican border. Signed in Mexico City, February 7, 1936, this treaty was ratified by the President of the United States on October 8, 1936, and documents of ratification were exchanged on March 15, 1937, in Washington, D.C. United States implementation of the treaty was accomplished by amending the Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918 (16 U.S.C. 703-711; 40 Stat. 755) on June 20, 1936 (49 Stat. 1556). The treaty was amended March 10, 1972 (23 U.S.T. 260; T.I.A.S. 7302) to add 32 additional families of birds including eagles, hawks, owls, and Corvidae family. The treaty was amended in 1995 to establish a legal framework for the subsistence take of birds in Alaska and northern Canada by Alaska Natives and Aboriginal people in Canada. The Senate provided its advice and consent to the amendments in November, 1997. The treaty was formally implemented in 1999. | Treaty | ||
| Moreland v. Adams | 152 P.3d 558 (Idaho, 2007) | 2007 WL 189336 (Idaho, 2007), 143 Idaho 687 (2007) |
A motorcyclist died when he ran into a calf on the road. His family sued for wrongful death. The court held that the owner of the calf was not liable because of open range immunity. |
Case |