Results
Displaying 6561 - 6570 of 6638
| Title | Citation | Alternate Citation | Agency Citation | Summary | Type |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| US - Primate - Animal Welfare; Draft Policy on Environment Enhancement for Nonhuman Primates | Doc. No. 98-121-1 |
Under the Animal Welfare Act, our regulations require that dealers, exhibitors, and research facilities that maintain nonhuman primates develop and follow a plan for environment enhancement adequate to promote the psychological well-being of the nonhuman primates. We have developed a draft policy to clarify what we believe must be considered and included in the plan in order for dealers, exhibitors, and research facilities to adequately promote the psychological well-being of nonhuman primates. |
Administrative | ||
| WV - Cruelty, reporting - § 9-6-9a. Mandatory reporting suspected of animal cruelty by adult protective service workers | W. Va. Code, § 9-6-9a, W. Va. Code, § 48-27-702, W. Va. Code, § 49-2-806 | WV ST § 9-6-9a, WV ST § 48-27-702, WV ST § 49-2-806 | These West Virginia statutes require that an adult protective services worker, a child protective services worker, or a law enforcement officer who responds to an alleged domestic violence incident, who form a reasonable suspicion that an animal is the victim of cruelty, shall report their suspicion to the county humane society within twenty-four hours. | Statute | |
| NY - Food Service - § 1352-e. Companion dogs at food service establishments | McKinney's Public Health Law § 1352-e | NY PUB HEALTH § 1352-e | This statute allows for companion dogs in an outdoor dining area at a food service establishment in the state of New York. The companion dogs are allowed at an outdoor dining area if the owner of the establishment allows companion dogs, a separate outdoor entrance is available for the companion dog to enter the dining area, and the outdoor area where the companion dog is allowed is not used for food or drink preparation. The statute also outlines a number of other requirements that the owner of the establishment and owner of the companion dog must follow in order to be in compliance with this statute. | Statute | |
| NE - Cruelty - Article 9. Livestock Animal Welfare Act | Neb. Rev. St. § 54-901 - 913 | NE ST § 54-901 to 54-912 | In 2010, Nebraska enacted the Livestock Animal Welfare Act. The act makes the intentional abandonment, neglect, or cruel mistreatment of livestock (bovine, equine, swine, sheep, goats, domesticated cervine animals, ratite birds, or poultry) a Class I misdemeanor (Class IV felony for subsequent offenses). Further, the act criminalizes "indecency with a livestock animal," which is a Class III misdemeanor. A person who is convicted of a Class IV felony under 54-903 (the abandonment/cruel neglect or mistreatment provision) shall also be ordered by the sentencing court not to possess a livestock animal for at least 5 years after the date of conviction. | Statute | |
| LA - Endangered Species - THREATENED AND ENDANGERED SPECIES CONSERVATION | LSA-R.S. 56:1901 - 07 | These Louisiana statutes set forth the legislative policy, definitions, and factors for listing endangered species. Additionally, the commission is authorized to issue and promote the sale to the general public of "endangered species" stamps as an additional source of funding for implementation of programs under these statutes. Violation of these provisions may result in a class four or class six violation. | Statute | ||
| Phillips v. North Carolina State University | 697 S.E.2d 433 (N.C.App.,2010) |
University operated a horse breeding management facility. Industrial Commission found that University was negligent in broodmare's death that occurred during transport. The Court of Appeals held that mare’s owners were entitled to lost profit for a single breeding cycle. |
Case | ||
| Minter-Smith v. Florida | 864 So. 2d 1141 (Fla. 2003) |
Defendant was convicted of unlawfully owning, possessing, keeping or training a dog or dogs with intent that such dog engage in dogfighting and he appealed. The Court of Criminal Appeals held that: (1) statute under which appellant was convicted was not unconstitutionally vague; (2) testimony of investigator was sufficient for jury to conclude that defendant was in violation of the statute that was not unconstitutional on ground that it was ex post facto as applied to defendant; (3) evidence as to poor conditions of dogs and their vicious propensities was relevant to issue of defendant's intent to fight the dogs; and (4) evidence gained by police officer pursuant to search warrant was not inadmissible. Affirmed.
|
Case | ||
| MA - Cruelty, reporting - § 85. Department employees reporting animal cruelty, abuse or neglect; immunity from liability | M.G.L.A. 119 § 85 | Mass. Gen. Laws Ann. ch. 119, § 85 (West) | This Massachusetts statute provides that a state employee acting within the scope of his or her employment, who has knowledge of or observes an animal whom he knows or reasonably suspects has been the victim of animal cruelty, abuse or neglect may report it to the entities that investigate these reports or any local animal control. The statute describes how to make the report, timing to submit, and who can make the report if 2 or more employees witness the abuse. The statute also makes clear that no person who makes a report shall be liable in any civil or criminal action if the report was made in good faith. | Statute | |
| Powell v. Johnson | 855 F. Supp. 2d 871, 877 (D. Minn. 2012) | Blu, a pit bull was shot in the head and killed after Officer Johnson entered the pit bull’s yard. The Plaintiffs, who were owners of Blu, filed a complaint asserting a: violation of the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments by shooting and killing Blu (Count I); violation of Plaintiffs' constitutional rights due to the City's failure to adequately hire, train, and supervise Johnson (Count II); intentional infliction of emotional distress (Count III); negligent hiring, supervision, and retention of Johnson (Count IV); vicarious liability (Count V); and trespass and conversion (Count VI). The Defendants, Officer Johnson and the City of Minneapolis, filed a Motion for Summary Judgment. The court held that the Motion would be granted in part. The court reasoned that Blu was property, rather than a person, for Fourth Amendment purposes and the officer's shooting and killing of Blu constituted a “seizure.” However, the court concluded that Officer Johnson was entitled to qualified immunity on Plaintiffs' Fourth Amendment claim. The court reasoned that it was not unreasonable for the Officer to perceive a threat to his safety when the large pit bull jogged up behind him. The court also held that The Motion for summary judgment was granted as to the remaining claims because the evidence in the record, failed to establish a constitutional violation by Defendants. | Case | ||
| MN - Ordinances - Chapter 365. Town General Law. Town Meeting Powers. | M. S. A. § 365.10 | MN ST § 365.10 | Under this Minnesota statute, town electors at their annual town meeting, are empowered to exercise control over a number of activities relating to dogs. They can decide the locations of pounds, set the number of poundmasters, and discontinue a pound. The electors may make orders and bylaws on restraining horses, cattle, sheep, swine, and other domestic animals from going at large on roads. They may also make orders and bylaws on the impounding of domestic animals going at large and fix penalties for violations of the orders and bylaws. The electors may let the town board pass an ordinance for licensing dogs and cats and regulating their presence, keeping, and running at large in the town. The electors are also granted the authority to provide for a specific activity that is within any of the following categories: the promotion of health, safety, order, and convenience, and the general welfare. | Statute |