Results

Displaying 1 - 10 of 6006
Title Citation Alternate Citation Agency Citation Summary Type
Williams v. Spinola 622 P.2d 322 (Or.App., 1981) 50 Or.App. 87 (1981)

Defendant appeals from a judgment entered on a jury verdict awarding plaintiff $3,600 in compensatory and $4,000 in punitive damages for the unlawful killing of plaintiff's dogs. Defendant contended at trial that the dogs were trying molest her sheep. With regard to defendant's claim on appeal that punitive damages were not appropriate in this case, the court agreed that the issue should not have been submitted to the jury. The court affirmed the jury's finding with regard to denial of defendant's directed verdict, and reversed the award of punitive damages.

Case
TX- Circus, entertainment animals - Subchapter B. Care of Animals by Circuses, Carnivals, and Zoos 25 TX ADC § 169.41 - 169.48 25 TAC § 169.41 to .48 (§§ 169.41 to 169.48. Repealed eff. Nov. 13, 2016)

This set of regulations sets license conditions and fees for circuses, carnivals, and zoos that are regulated by the Department of Health Services and establishes standards regarding the care of animals maintained by those facilities. All circuses, carnivals, and zoos that are regulated by the United States Department of Agriculture under the Federal Animal Welfare Act are exempt from these regulations.

Administrative
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
NV - Disaster - Chapter 414. Emergency Management. General Provisions. N. R. S. 414.095 and 414.097 NV ST 414.095 and 414.097

In Nevada, an emergency management plan must address the needs of persons with pets or service animals during and after an emergency or disaster.

Statute
ME - Horsemeat - § 2163. Sale of horsemeat 22 M.R.S.A. § 2163 ME ST T. 22 § 2163

This Maine statute provides that no person shall transport, receive for transportation, sell or offer for sale or distribution any equine meat or food products thereof unless said equine meat is plainly and conspicuously labeled, marked, branded and tagged “horsemeat” or “horsemeat products” unless such equine meat is conspicuously branded and labeled and a notice containing the words “horsemeat and horsemeat products sold here” is conspicuously displayed in said place of business. Any person, firm or corporation who shall violate any of the provisions of this section shall be punished by a fine of not more than $100 for the first offense and by a fine of not more than $200 for each subsequent offense, and the District and Superior Courts shall have concurrent jurisdiction of the offense.

Statute
People v. Lohnes 112 A.D.3d 1148, 976 N.Y.S.2d 719 (N.Y. App. Div., 2013) 2013 N.Y. Slip Op. 08471, 2013 WL 6670466 (N.Y. App. Div., 2013)

After breaking into a barn and stabbing a horse to death, the defendant plead guilty to charges of aggravated cruelty to animals; burglary in the third degree; criminal mischief in the second degree; and overdriving, torturing and injuring animals. On appeal, the court found a horse could be considered a companion animal within New York's aggravated cruelty statute if the horse was not a farm animal raised for commercial or subsistence purposes and the horse was normally maintained in or near the household of the owner or the person who cared for it. The appeals court also vacated and remitted the sentence imposed on the aggravated cruelty charge because the defendant was entitled to know that the prison term was not the only consequence of entering a plea.

Case
US - Air travel, service animals - Guidance Concerning the Carriage of Service Animals in Air Transportation Into the United Kingdom 2007 WL 555627 (F.R.) FR Doc. E7-3195

This notice publishes guidance concerning the carriage of service animals in air transportation from the United States (U.S.) to the United Kingdom (U.K.). These guidelines address the differences between U.K. laws regulating the transport of service animals on flights into the U.K. and U.S. law with respect to the carriage of service animals in air transportation. U.K. laws affecting the transport of service animals in air travel differ significantly from the requirements of the Air Carrier Access Act (ACAA), 49 U.S.C. 41705, and its implementing regulation in 14 CFR Part 382, resulting in uncertainty for carriers and persons with disabilities about the requirements that apply on flights into or transiting the U.K.

Administrative
Animal Law Index Volume 19, Part 2

Animal Law Review Volume 19, Issue 2 (Spring 2013)

 

INTRODUCTION

CONSISTENTLY INCONSISTENT: THE CONSTITUTION AND ANIMALS
Mariann Sullivan

 

Policy
MT - Exotic wildlife - Part 7. Importation, Introduction, and Transplantation of Wildlife MCA 87-5-701 to 87-5-725 MT ST 87-5-701 to 87-5-725

These Montana statutes control the importation, introduction, and transplantation of exotic wildlife into the state. The importation of any wildlife is prohibited unless the species poses no threat of harm to native wildlife and plants or to agricultural production and that the introduction has significant public benefits. Violations may result in a fine or imprisonment.

Statute
IN - Trust - 30-4-2-18. Trust to provide for care of an animal alive during settlor's lifetime I.C. 30-4-2-18 IN ST 30-4-2-18

Indiana's pet trust law was enacted in 2005. The trust terminates upon the death of the animal or upon death of last surviving animal alive during settlor’s lifetime. Property of a trust authorized by this section may be applied only to the trust's intended use, except to the extent the court determines that the value of the trust property exceeds the amount required for the trust's intended use.

Statute

Pages