Results
Displaying 11 - 20 of 6639
| Title | Citation | Alternate Citation | Agency Citation | Summary | Type |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| New York Consolidated Laws 1938: Sections 180-196 | N.Y. Penal Law §§ 180-196 (Consol. 1938) | Article 16, entitled "Animals", concerns New York's Law about the treatment of animals from 1938. The act covers such topics as poisoning of animals to abandoning diseased or injured animals. In addition, the act provides definitions in section 180. | Statute | ||
| WA - Service Dogs - 162-38-105. Removal of dog guides and service animals. | Wash. Admin. Code 162-38-105 | WAC 162-38-105 | This Washington regulation concerns trained guide dogs or service animals. It is an unfair practice to request that a trained dog guide or service animal be removed, unless the person can show: (a) that the presence, behavior or actions of that dog guide or service animal constitutes an unreasonable risk of injury or harm to property or other persons; and (b) a reasonable attempt to eliminate the behavior or actions of that dog guide or service animal that constitutes an unreasonable risk fails. | Administrative | |
| CA - Initiatives - Proposition 2 (farm cruelty) | 2008 Proposition 2 | This 2008 California initiative measure would add to the Health & Safety Code with a law entitled, "The Prevention of Farm Animal Cruelty Act." Specifically, the proposed law requires that calves raised for veal, egg-laying hens and pregnant pigs be confined only in ways that allow these animals to lie down, stand up, fully extend their limbs and turn around freely. Exceptions are made for transportation, rodeos, fairs, 4-H programs, lawful slaughter, research and veterinary purposes. The law provides misdemeanor penalties, including a fine not to exceed $1,000 and/or imprisonment in jail for up to 180 days and would go into effect on January 1, 2015. It was approved in November 2008 by a margin of 63% to 37%. | Statute | ||
| WI - Rabies - 95.21. Rabies control program | W. S. A. 95.21 | WI ST 95.21 | Except as provided in s. 174.054 or sub. (9)(d), the owner of a dog shall have the dog vaccinated against rabies by a veterinarian or, if a veterinarian is physically present at the location the vaccine is administered, by a veterinary technician, at no later than 5 months of age and revaccinated within one year after the initial vaccination. The owner of a dog shall have the dog revaccinated against rabies before the date that the immunization expires as stated on the certificate of vaccination or, if no date is specified, within 3 years after the previous vaccination. The owner shall attach the rabies vaccination tag or a substitute tag to a collar and a collar with the tag attached shall be kept on the dog at all times. | Statute | |
| DeVaul v. Carvigo Inc. | 526 N.Y.S.2d 483 (N.Y.A.D. 2 Dept.,1988) | 138 A.D.2d 669 (N.Y.A.D. 2 Dept.,1988) |
This New York case involved a dog bite victim who brought an action against the owner to recover for personal injuries. The Supreme Court, Nassau County entered judgment in favor of owner. On appeal with the Supreme Court, Appellate Division, the court held that the viciousness of German shepherd dogs was not appropriate subject of judicial notice. The court found that there is no authority for the proposition that judicial notice should be taken "as to the ferocity of any particular type of domestic animal." |
Case | |
| Vick, Michael - Associated Materials (2007, 2008) |
The following contains links to the materials associated with Michael Vick's federal and state indictments for dogfighting. |
Pleading | |||
| US - Wolf - Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Final Rule Designating | 2007 WL 408325 (F.R.) |
Establishes the Western Great Lakes Distinct Population Segment (DPS) of the gray wolf and removes the DPS from the list of endangered and threatened wildlife. |
Administrative | ||
| Zelenka v. Pratte | 912 N.W.2d 723 (Neb. 2018) | 300 Neb. 100 (2018) | Pratte and Zelenka were in a relationship up until their separation in 2015. Zelenka moved out of the residence that they had shared, however, he was unable to retrieve several items of personal property one of which was a French bulldog named Pavlov. Zelenka filed a complaint against Pratte alleging conversion. Zelenka contended that Pavlov was given to him as a birthday gift from Pratte. The district court ordered Pratte to return Pavlov to Zelenka and the rest of the personal property to remain with Pratte. Pratte appealed and Zelenka cross-appealed. The Supreme Court of Nebraska found that although the parties styled their complaint as one for conversion, the parties tried the action as one for replevin and treated the case in all respects as if replevin had been raised in the pleadings, therefore, the Court treated the action as one in which replevin had been raised in the pleadings. The Court ultimately found the following: Zelenka met his burden of proving that Pavlov was a gift from Pratte; Pratte failed to meet his burden of proving that the Niche leather couch, Niche lamps, and French bulldog lamp were gifts from Zelenka; and that those three items should be returned to Zelenka. As for the other items of personal property, the Court found that there was no basis to set aside the district court’s finding that Zelenka failed to meet his burden of proving ownership. The Court affirmed in part, and reversed and remanded in part. | Case | |
| UT - Ag gag - § 76-6-112. Agricultural operation interference--Penalties | U.C.A. 1953 § 76-6-112 | UT ST § 76-6-112 | This Utah law creates the crime of "agricultural operation interference ." A person commits agricultural operation interference if he or she records an image or sound from an agricultural operation by leaving a recording device without consent, obtains access to an agricultural operation under false pretenses, applies for employment with the intent to record, or without consent intentionally records the operation while committing criminal trespass. | Statute | |
| McPherson v. Schlemmer | 749 P.2d 51 (Mont. 1988) | 230 Mont. 81 (Mont. 1988) |
In McPherson v. Schlemer , plaintiff’s cows were killed by defendant when they wandered onto the highway. The court determined that damages were calculated at the present and future profits for fair market value. |
Case |