Results
| Title | Citation | Alternate Citation | Summary | Type |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| IN - Hunting - Chapter 37. Harassment of Hunters, Trappers, and Fishermen | I.C. 14-22-37-1 to 14-22-37-3 | IN ST 14-22-37-1 to 14-22-37-3 | This section reflects Indiana's hunter harassment law. A person who knowingly or intentionally interferes with the legal taking of a game animal by another person with intent to prevent the taking commits a Class C misdemeanor. A person who fails to obey the order of a law enforcement officer to desist from conduct in violation of section 2 of this chapter commits a Class B misdemeanor if the law enforcement officer (1) observed the person or (2) has reasonable grounds to believe that the person has engaged in the conduct that day or intends to engage in the conduct that day on specific premises. | Statute |
| CO - Equine Activity Liability Statute - Article 21. Damages. | C. R. S. A. § 13-21-119 | CO ST § 13-21-119 | This Colorado statute embodies the intent of the general assembly to encourage equine activities and llama activities by limiting the civil liability of those involved in such activities. This section also contains specific provisions related to llama activities. Liability is not limited by this statute where the equine or llama sponsor provided faulty equipment or tack, failed to make reasonable and prudent efforts to determine the ability of the participant to engage safely in the activity, owned or otherwise possessed the land upon which an injury occurred where there was a known latent condition, or if he or she commits an act or omission that constitutes willful or wanton disregard for the safety of the participant or intentionally injures the participant. | Statute |
| Arrington v. Arrington | 613 S.W.2d 565 (Tex. Civ. App. 1981) |
A divorcing couple agreed to visitation of their dog, which the trial court incorporated into the divorce decree, appointing wife as the dog's managing conservator. Husband appealed because he had not been appointed managing conservator; the appellate court stated that dogs are personal property, and the office of managing conservator had been created for human children. While the court held that dogs are personal property under the law, it also stated that visitation of dogs should be allowed. |
Case | |
| MA - Initiatives - Question 3, Minimum Size Requirements for Farm Animal Containment (2016) | Question 3 | Massachusetts Question 3 is a law proposed by initiative petition and appears on the 2016 ballot. This proposed law would prohibit any farm owner or operator from knowingly confining any breeding pig, calf raised for veal, or egg-laying hen in a way that prevents the animal from lying down, standing up, fully extending its limbs, or turning around freely. The Secretary of the Commonwealth's official summary states: "This proposed law would prohibit any farm owner or operator from knowingly confining any breeding pig, calf raised for veal, or egg-laying hen in a way that prevents the animal from lying down, standing up, fully extending its limbs, or turning around freely. The proposed law would also prohibit any business owner or operator in Massachusetts from selling whole eggs intended for human consumption or any uncooked cut of veal or pork if the business owner or operator knows or should know that the hen, breeding pig, or veal calf that produced these products was confined in a manner prohibited by the proposed law. The proposed law would exempt sales of food products that combine veal or pork with other products, including soups, sandwiches, pizzas, hotdogs, or similar processed or prepared food items." A "yes" vote would prohibit any confinement of pigs, calves, and hens that prevents them from lying down, standing up, fully extending their limbs, or turning around freely. A "no" vote would make no change in current laws relative to the keeping of farm animals. | Statute | |
| GA - Deer Hunting - § 27-5-12. Unlawful to kill or wound farmed deer or wild animal held | Ga. Code Ann., § 27-5-12 | GA ST 27-5-12 | Under this Georgia statute, it is unlawful to shoot, kill, or wound any wild animal held under a wild animal license or permit or any farmed deer for enjoyment, gain, amusement, or sport. | Statute |
| CA - Testing, animal - Chapter 2. Deposit for Keeping. Article 1. General Provisions. | West's Ann. Cal. Civ. Code § 1833 - 1840 | CA CIVIL § 1833 - 1840 | The following statutes requires that a research facility which houses living animals shall provide said animals with veterinary care, food, housing, and treat each animal with kindness. Any violation of the statute could result in civil liability. In addition, the statutes provide that an alternative testing method must be utilized when scientifically validated, recommended by the ICCVAM, and adopted by the appropriate federal agency. A new section from 2020 prohibits a manufacturer from importing for profit, selling, or offering for sale in this state, any cosmetic, if the cosmetic was developed or manufactured using an animal test that was conducted or contracted by the manufacturer, or any supplier of the manufacturer, on or after January 1, 2020. | Statute |
| Edmondson v. Oklahoma | 91 P.3d 605 (Okla. 2004) | 2004 OK 23 (2004) |
Petitioners sought relief from a temporary injunction for the Respondents, which prevented petitioners from enforcing the statute banning cockfighting. The Supreme Court assumed original jurisdiction and held that the statute did not violate the Oklahoma State Constitution, and was not unconstitutionally overbroad. Relief granted for petitioners. |
Case |
| U.S. v. Lopez (Abridged for Purposes of Eagle Topic Area) | 115 S.Ct. 1624 (1995) |
Laws governing intrastate activities will be upheld if they substantially affect interstate commerce. Under the Eagle Act, the power to regulate eagles has been summarily upheld as a valid exercise of commerce power, as it protects the eagle as a species by preventing the creation of a legal commercial market for the animal. For further discussion of the Eagle Act, see Detailed Discussion. |
Case | |
| OK - Police and Dogs - § 36.1. Police dog handlers--Civil liability | 22 Okl.St.Ann. § 36.1 | OK ST T. 22 § 36.1 | This Oklahoma statute deals with the civil liability of police dog handlers. Under the statute, a police dog handler who uses a dog in the line of duty in accordance with the policies and standards established by the law enforcement agency that employs the officer, will not be civilly liable for any damages arising from the use of the dog. The police dog handler may only be liable for exceptions listed in the Governmental Tort Claims Act. | Statute |
| Revista Brasileira de Direito Animal Volume 17 |
TABLE OF CONTENTS EDITORIAL /FOREWORDS Heron Santana Gordilho ……………………………………………….9 Doutrina Internacional/International Articles |
Policy |