Results
| Title | Citation | Alternate Citation | Summary | Type |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| OH - Cruelty - Chapter 1717. Humane Societies. County Humane Societies | R.C. § 1717.01 - 1717.18 | OH ST § 1717.01 - 1717.18 | This chapter relates to the formation and powers of humane societies in Ohio. Under the chapter, a county humane society organized under section 1717.05 of the Revised Code may appoint agents, who are residents of the county or municipal corporation for which the appointment is made, for the purpose of prosecuting any person guilty of an act of cruelty to persons or animals. Such agents may arrest any person found violating this chapter or any other law for protecting persons or animals or preventing acts of cruelty. | Statute |
| MN - Minneapolis - Title 4: Animals and Fowl (Chapter 76 - Stables) and Title 13 - LICENSES AND BUSINESS REGULATIONS (CHAPTER 303. HORSE AND CARRIAGE LIVERY SERVICES) | Minneapolis, Minnesota Code of Ordinances §§76.10 - 76.90, 303.10-303.160 |
In these Minneapolis, Minnesota ordinances, a stable or assembly/transfer facility is used exclusively for the purposes of keeping horses used in a licensed horse and carriage livery service. Any horse kept in a stable or an assembly/transfer facility must be registered with the Department of Licenses and Consumer Services and must meet the standards of a veterinary examination and certification. Requirements for the construction and operations of a stable or assembly/transfer facility are also provided, as are the provisions for the operations of a horse and carriage livery service. |
Local Ordinance | |
| Mansbridge v Nichols | [2004] VSC 530 |
The appellant was convicted of seven offences under the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act 1986 (Vic) related to the appellant's treatment of merino sheep in her care. The appellant was successful in overturning three of the charges on the basis that they were latently duplicitous or ambiguous. The appellant was unsuccessful in arguing that the trial judge failed to give adequate reasons. |
Case | |
| Animal Legal Defense Fund v. Reynolds | 297 F.Supp.3d 901 (S.D. Iowa Feb. 27, 2018) | 2018 WL 1151000 (S.D. Iowa Feb. 27, 2018) | In 2012, Iowa passed a statute (Iowa code § 717A.3A) that criminalized gaining access to agricultural facilities under false pretenses and making a false representation on a job application for those facilities. Plaintiffs in this case (animal rights groups including the Animal Legal Defense Fund and PETA) brought suit alleging that the statute was unconstitutional and sought to enjoin the Defendants (governor of Iowa) from enforcing it. Their complaint alleged that the statute violates the First Amendment as discrimination on the basis of content, the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment by targeting animals rights groups, and violates the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment by burdening the freedom of speech. This case decides the Defendants’ motion to dismiss the Plaintiffs’ complaint based on lack of standing and failure to state a claim because the outlawed conduct is not protected by the First Amendment as false statements and is rationally related to the legitimate government interest of protecting private property, thereby not violating the Fourteenth Amendment. The court denies Defendants' motion with respect to the First Amendment, concluding that Plaintiffs have plausibly alleged the intent to suppress their message because of their viewpoint. However, the court grants the motion to dismiss for the claim of a Fourteenth Amendment violation because the statute in fact serves a legitimate government purpose in protecting private property. | Case |
| SD - Veterinary - Chapter 36-12. Veterinarians. | S D C L § 36-12-1 - 29 | SD ST § 36-12-1 - 29 | These are the state's veterinary practice laws. Among the provisions include licensing requirements, laws concerning the state veterinary board, veterinary records laws, and the laws governing disciplinary actions for impaired or incompetent practitioners. | Statute |
| NH - Eagle, Golden - Chapter 209. Game Birds; Pigeons. | N.H. Rev. Stat. § 209:1 - 209:13 | NH ST § 209:1 - 209:13 | New Hampshire prohibits the hunting, capturing, killing, or possession of any bald or golden eagle or disturbing eagle nests and young. | Statute |
| AR - Sherwood - Breed - Pit Bull Ordinance No. 1776 | SHERWOOD, AR., CITY ORDINANCE No. 1776 (2008) |
In Sherwood, Arkansas, it is unlawful to keep, harbor, own or possess any pit bull dog, with the exception for those who are registered and reside in an area that is annexed into corporate city limits. However, if a pit bull is aggressive towards people or other dogs, the dog is not exempt from the ban. Registration requirements include: annual vaccinations, license, microchips, photo ID, insurance, proper confinement, 'Beware of Dog' signs, and mandatory disclosures. Any dog found to be the subject of a violation shall be subject to immediate seizure and impoundment or may be euthanized. The owner may be fined up to $1,000 and imprisoned for up to 30 days.
|
Local Ordinance | |
| Ellertson v. Dansie | 576 P.2d 867 (Utah, 1978) |
In this Utah case, plaintiff sued the defendants for personal injuries he sustained in attempting to untangle the defendants' horse from a chain that he alleges the defendants negligently tied it to a post in their yard. The Supreme Court held that plaintiff who, at defendant's request, entered upon defendants' land to help free horse which had become entangled in chain because of defendant's alleged negligence in tying the horse to the post, could not recover for his injuries since it was his knowing and voluntary conduct in going into a "plain-to-be-seen" danger. The dissent found that defendants did owe a duty to plaintiff to exercise reasonable care under the circumstances in the manner in which they tied the horse. The dissent found this case more analogous to those under a "rescue doctrine," where recovery is not barred based on the doctrine of assumption of risk or intervening cause. |
Case | |
| Joy Road Area Forest and Watershed Association v. California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection | 47 Cal.Rptr.3d 846 (2006) | 142 Cal.App.4th 656 (2006) |
The California Department of Forestry approved a developer's Timber Harvest Plan of cutting trees down to build a housing development. The court found that The California Department of Forestry abused its discretion by approving the Timber Harvest Plan because it had not given the public sufficient information about the plan, including the impact on the Northern Spotted Owl before approving it, and because the Timber Harvest Plan did not adequately address the issue of how the plan would affect water quality in the area. |
Case |
| Respecting Animals: A Balanced Approach to Our Relationship with Pets, Food, and Wildlife |
|
Policy |
