Results
Displaying 111 - 120 of 6638
| Title | Citation | Alternate Citation | Agency Citation | Summary | Type |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| CA - Sharks - § 2021. Shark fins; unlawful possession, sale, offer for sale, trading, or distribution; exceptions | West's Ann.Cal.Fish & G.Code §§ 2021, 2021.5 | CA FISH & G § 2021, 2021.5 | Under these California statutes, it is unlawful to possess, sell, offer for sale, trade, or distribute a shark fin. However, there are exceptions for people who have a license or permit. In addition, people and restaurants who have a shark fin as of January 1, 2012 may possess it until January 1, 2013. | Statute | |
| State v. Smith | 54 A.3d 638 (Conn.App.) | 139 Conn.App. 107 |
A defendant was charged and convicted of one count of permitting a dog to roam at large. Upon appeal, the defendant argued the statute he was convicted under was unconstitutionally vague and that he was convicted under insufficient evidence. Defendant contended that simply having his dog off-leash did not mean that it was roaming at large and not under his control where the dog responded to verbal commands. The court rejected both of defendant's arguments, finding that the plain language of the statute clearly prohibits an owner allowing a dog to move freely on another's property unrestrained and not under the owner's direct influence. |
Case | |
| LEDESMA, DIEGO ALBER TO SOBRE 1 -LEY DE PROTECCION ANIMAL, MALOS TRATOS O ACTOS DE CRUELDAD - Argentina- do not publish yet! | Lola Limon, cougar as subject of Rights | Case | |||
| Animal Law and Welfare - International Perspectives |
|
Policy | |||
| KS - Veterinarian Issues - Professional Conduct | K.A.R. 70-8-1 | KS ADC 70-8-1 | The following represents acts by a Kansas licensed veterinarian that shall be considered unprofessional conduct and shall constitute grounds for disciplinary action against the licensee. | Administrative | |
| CT - Equine Activity Liability Statute - Chapter 925. Statutory Rights of Action and Defenses | C. G. S. A. § 52-557p | CT ST § 52-557p | This short Connecticut statute limits the liability of equine sponsors by providing that each person engaged in recreational equestrian activities assumes the risk for any injury arising out of the hazards inherent in equestrian sports. However, if the injury was proximately caused by the negligence of the person providing the horse or by the failure to guard or warn against a dangerous condition, use, structure or activity, liability if not limited by law. Another section (557s), enacted in 2014, states that, in any civil action brought against the owner or keeper of any horse, pony, donkey or mule to recover damages for any personal injury allegedly caused by such horse, pony, donkey or mule, such horse, pony, donkey or mule shall not be found to belong to a species that possesses a naturally mischievous or vicious propensity. As such, there is no cause of action for strict liability brought against the owner of any horse, pony, donkey or mule to recover damages for any personal injury alleged to be caused by the animal. | Statute | |
| MA - Eggs - Ch. 129 Prevention of Farm Animal Cruelty Act | M.G.L.A. 129 §§ 1-1 - 1-12 | Mass. Gen. Laws Ann. ch. 129 App., §§ 1-1 - 1-12 (West) | This collection of laws was created by Massachusetts voters when they approved Question 3 and the 2016 ballot. These laws prevent the inhumane confinement of pregnant pigs, calves raised for veal, and egg-laying hens in the state of Massachusetts. These laws also prohibit the sale of products in Massachusetts made from animals confined in violation of these laws. | Statute | |
| Wysotski v. Air Canada |
Airline mishandled shipment of pet cat, the container was damaged and cat escaped. Complaint on negligence and other grounds for $2.5 million in damages. |
Pleading | |||
| Robinson v. City of Bluefield | 764 S.E.2d 740 (W. Va. Oct. 2, 2014) | 234 W. Va. 209, 2014 WL 5032602 (W. Va. Oct. 2, 2014) | An Animal Control Officer responded to a complaint about two dogs at defendant's residence. While investigating the complaint at defendant's residence, the animal control officer was attacked by one of defendant's dogs. The officer sought medical treatment following the incident. The City of Bluefield subsequently brought charges against defendant in its municipal court, charging her with having a dangerous animal in violation of city ordinances. The municipal court ordered the dog killed. On appeal, the Circuit Court of Mercer County affirmed the municipal court's decision. Defendant then appealed the Circuit Court's decision arguing that that Circuit Court erred in concluding that the municipal court had the authority to order the destruction of her dog. After review, the Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia agreed with defendant and found that under the plain language of W.Va.Code § 19–20–20, the City of Bluefield was required to set forth satisfactory proof that defendant’s dog was “vicious, dangerous, or in the habit of biting or attacking other persons” before a circuit court or a magistrate, not a municipal court. The court therefore found that ordinance was void to the extent that it allowed a municipal court to order the destruction of the dog. The circuit court's order affirming the municipal court's order to kill Ms. Robinson's dog was therefore reversed. Justice Loughry dissents. | Case | |
| CA - Cruelty - § 597.4. Selling or giving away live animals on any street, highway, | West's Ann. Cal. Penal Code § 597.4 | CA PENAL § 597.4 | This California statute makes is unlawful (with exceptions) to sell or give away, as part of a commercial transaction, a live animal on any street, highway, public right-of-way, parking lot, carnival, or boardwalk. The first violation is an infraction punishable by a fine up to $250. However, if the animal suffers, is injured, or its life or health is endangered, then the person is guilty of a misdemeanor. | Statute |
