Results
Displaying 31 - 40 of 6638
| Title | Citation | Alternate Citation | Agency Citation | Summary | Type |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| GA - Hunting - § 27-3-28. Possession of wildlife accidentally killed by motor vehicle | Ga. Code Ann., § 27-3-28 | GA ST § 27-3-28 | This Georgia states that except as otherwise provided in this Code, any person may lawfully possess native wildlife which have been accidentally killed by a motor vehicle. However, the person taking possession of a bear accidentally killed by a motor vehicle shall notify a law enforcement officer within 48 hours after taking possession of the bear; and this Code section shall not authorize any person to take possession of any animal of a species designated as a protected species under Article 5 of this chapter or under federal law. | Statute | |
| OH - Emergency - 4765.52 Provision of emergency medical services to dog or cat | R.C. § 4765.52 | OH ST § 4765.52 | This Ohio statute specifies the emergency treatment that a medical technician or first responder could provide, prior to a dog or cat being transferred to a veterinarian for further treatment. The statute also highlights the immunities that medical responders, directors, and emergency medical service organizations have under the statute, unless they engage in an act or omission while providing medical services to a dog or cat, that constitutes willful or wanton misconduct. The statute also makes clear that a veterinarian who acts in good faith is not liable for any act or omission that occurred prior to the veterinarian providing services to the cat or dog. | Statute | |
| Proyecto Amparo en revisión 630, 2017 | Proyecto Amparo en revisión 630, 2017 | This is a draft of a withdrawn "Amparo" decision, but it is relevant as it highlights the connection between the human right to a healthy environment and the duty to protect animals.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, plaintiff, Promociones y Espectáculos Zapaliname, S.A. de C.V., a company specializing in organizing bullfighting events, filed a legal action against various governmental entities and individuals in the state of Coahuila, in Mexico. The plaintiff challenged the 2015 amendment to Coahuila's animal protection law, which prohibited bullfighting and similar practices, on the grounds that it violated their rights to work, property, and cultural expression. The lower court dismissed the case regarding Article 20, Section XV of the animal protection law due to a lack of legal interest and because these provisions were not applicable to the case. The court also rejected the Amparo concerning Article 20, Section XIV of the same law. The case was appealed and eventually transferred to the Supreme Court of Justice. The Second Chamber of the Supreme Court, after hearing the case de novo, upheld the constitutionality of Article 20, Section XIV of Coahuila's animal protection law. The judge emphasized that the right to a healthy environment includes the protection of animals as an element of the environment, moving away from viewing animals purely as property. The court highlighted the presence of various laws recognizing the need for humane treatment of animals and prohibiting cruelty, even though Mexico lacks a national anti-cruelty law. This legal framework justified the ban on bullfighting and supported the broader legislative objective of protecting and treating animals with dignity. The court argued that allowing bullfighting caused suffering and death for the sake of entertainment, which was detrimental to the societal interest of protecting the environment and species conservation, as established in Article 4 of the Constitution. It also stressed the importance of governments adopting gradual measures to protect animals, and regressing on these measures would be undesirable. | Case | ||
| ME - Dog, Dangerous - Maine Dangerous Dog Laws | 7 M. R. S. A. § 3951 - 3955; 7 M. R. S. A. § 3961 - 3964; 7 M. R. S. A. § 3907 | ME ST T. 7 § 3951 - 3955; ME ST T. 7 § 3961 - 3964; ME ST T.7 § 3907 | This Maine statutory sections outlines the state's dangerous dog laws. It first provides that any person may lawfully kill a dog if necessary to protect that person, another person or a domesticated animal during the course of a sudden, unprovoked assault. A person who owns or keeps a dangerous dog commits a civil violation for which the court shall adjudge a fine of not less than $250 and not more than $1,000. The dog may be ordered to be muzzled, or euthanized if it has killed, maimed or inflicted serious bodily injury upon a person or has a history of a prior assault. Notably, if a dog whose owner refuses or neglects to comply with the order wounds any person by a sudden assault or wounds or kills any domestic animal, the owner shall pay the person injured treble damages and costs to be recovered by a civil action. The statute sets out the specific procedure for declaring a dog dangerous and the statutory definition of dangerous is also provided by reference to a companion statute. | Statute | |
| Motta v. Menendez | 46 A.D.3d 685 (N.Y.A.D. 2 Dept., 2007) | 2007 N.Y. Slip Op. 09778, 2007 WL 4328459 (N.Y.A.D. 2 Dept.), 847 N.Y.S.2d 612 |
This New York case arose following an incident that occurred on December 13, 2003, in which the appellant's two pit bull terriers entered the petitioner's property, and one of appellant's dogs ("Duke") attacked and injured the petitioner's pet dog. Following a special proceeding, the lower court determined that appellant's pit bull terrier named “Duke” was a dangerous dog and directed that it be destroyed. On appeal, the Supreme Court, Appellate Division found that the dangerous dog statute in effect on December 13, 2003, did not provide that one dog attacking another was conduct subject to the penalty of destruction (Agriculture and Markets Law former §§ 108, 121). |
Case | |
| Smith v. Lane | 832 N.E.2d 947 (Ill.App. 5 Dist. 2005) | 358 Ill.App.3d 1126; 295 Ill.Dec. 497; 2005 WL 1714281 |
In this Illinois case, the passenger of horse-drawn carriage brought action in negligence and strict liability against driver of carriage and owner of horse and carriage for injuries passenger received when carriage went off road and overturned. The lower court dismissed all of passenger's counts. On appeal, the Appellate Court held that, as matter of first impression, the passenger was not subject to provisions of EALA, and the alleged facts sufficient to state cause of action under state Animal Control Act. |
Case | |
| TX - Initiatives - Proposition 6, Right to hunt, fish and harvest wildlife | Proposition 6 (2015) |
This proposed constitutional amendment recognizes the right of the people to hunt, fish, and harvest wildlife subject to laws that promote wildlife conservation. It was a legislative referendum originally proposed as Senate Joint Resolution 22 (attached below). The measure passed in November 2015 with 82% of the vote. |
Statute | ||
| Ecuador - Animal rights - Civil Code | CÓDIGO CIVIL | Even though the constitution has indirectly granted animals rights as they are part of nature, they continue to be categorized as movable objects by the civil code. However, the most recent reform to the civil code is from 2005, meaning the current civil code still needs to be updated to comply with the 2008 constitution and subsequent constitutional court decisions. Article 585 defines movable objects as those that can be transported from one place to another, either by their force, like animals (which is why they are called “semovientes”), or by an external force, like inanimate things. Article 639 states that “domestic animals are subject to domain” (or complete ownership). It is important to note that the bill for animal welfare is currently in the hands of the National Assembly. Changing the categorization of animals in the civil code to “sentient beings” is one of the many topics regulated by this bill. | Statute | ||
| IL - Ecoterrorism - 5/48-2. Animal research and production facilities protection | 720 I.L.C.S. 5/48-2 | IL ST CH 720 § 5/48-2 | This new law replaces the Illinois' Animal Research and Production Facilities Protection Act, which was repealed in 2013. Under the new law, it is unlawful for any person to release, steal, or injure an animal held at a facility; to damage or vandalize any property; to obtain access to an animal facility by false pretenses for the purpose of performing unauthorized acts; to enter into an animal facility with an intent to destroy, alter, duplicate, or obtain unauthorized possession of records; or to enter or remain on an animal facility with the intent to commit a prohibited act. Violation of any of these acts is a felony, with classification based on the amount of property damage. | Statute | |
| US - Slaughter - Humane Slaughter of Livestock Regulations | 9 C.F.R. 313.1 - 313.90 | These regulations outline the requirements for the humane treatment of livestock prior to and during slaughter. Included are the requirements for pens, holding, and transportation areas, and the special circumstances for transporting and holding "downed" (nonambulatory) livestock. The regulations emphasize the minimization of "excitement and discomfort" to the livestock prior to transportation or slaughter. Of special note are the requirements for humane methods of slaughter, including the use of carbon dioxide gas, captive bolt "stunners" and projectiles, gunshot, and electrical current. | Administrative |