Results
Displaying 121 - 130 of 6822
| Title | Citation | Alternate Citation | Agency Citation | Summary | Type |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| IN - Animal Sacrifice - THE TELANGANA ANIMALS AND BIRDS SACRIFICES PROHIBITION ACT, 1950 | XXXII OF 1950 | The Act, specific to the South Indian state of Telangana, prohibits animal and bird sacrifice at places of public religious worship or in congregations associated with religious worship in a public street. Persons sacrificing animals can be imprisoned under this law. The law also prohibits persons from officiating at such animal sacrifices. Such persons can be fined. Animal sacrifice or officiating at an animal sacrifice is a cognizable offence—the accused can be arrested without a warrant. | Statute | ||
| Vermont Law 1854-1855: Cruelty to Animals | 1854 Vt. Acts & Resolves 51.1 | This document contains Vermont's anti-cruelty law from 1854. | Statute | ||
| DE - Newark - Chapter 5: Animals (Article II: Horses) | The Code of the City of Newark, 1970 §§ 6.12.010 - 6.12.100 5-19 to 5-21 |
In Newark, Delaware, a person is prohibited from riding, driving, or leading a horse on the city's sidewalks, but may ride a horse on a city street's bicycle path. Additionally, a person is prohibited from riding, driving, or leading a horse in a reckless, disorderly, or careless manner through or over any of the streets or private property in the city. Penalties for violating these provisions are provided. |
Local Ordinance | ||
| Whiteaker v. City of Southgate | 651 F. Supp. 3d 893 (E.D. Mich. 2023) | 2023 WL 317457 (E.D. Mich. Jan. 19, 2023) | The plaintiff (“Whiteaker”) filed this action against Defendant, the City of Southgate, Michigan for violations of the Fair Housing Act (“FHA”) and Michigan's Persons with Disabilities Civil Rights Act (“PDCRA”). Specifically, Whiteaker contends that the City violated the FHA by denying Whiteaker's request for an exemption from City Ordinance 610.13, which prohibits City residents from maintaining chickens (or other typical farm animals) on their property. The events underlying this action began after Whiteaker moved to Southgate in early March 2021. On March 24, 2021, Whiteaker was issued a citation by the City for a violation of Ordinance 610.13. Whiteaker appeared in district court to defend himself, claiming he had a right to keep the chickens under Michigan's Right to Farm Act. However, it turned out the Right to Farm law was inapplicable because Whiteaker's chicken coop was within 250 feet of a dwelling. Thus, Whiteaker was issued a second citation in May and was denied a permit to keep the chickens by the city. Since Whiteaker was a longtime sufferer of depression and anxiety, he sought a waiver from the ordinance as a reasonable accommodation for his disability and presented a letter from his mental health provider as support. Again, his request was denied by the City. In the instant motion for summary judgement by the City, the court examined the "reasonableness" of Whiteaker's request for a reasonable accommodation under the FHA. The court found that the balancing test required under the FHA, to wit, weighing Whiteaker's disability-related need to keep the chickens as a source of comfort and support against the City's claims that the chickens pose a threat to public health, is a triable issue of fact. Indeed, the court observed that the City's citation of documentation from the CDC only lists the "potential dangers" chickens can pose to public health without sufficient evidence to supports its claim that the chickens will burden the City financially and administratively. In contrast, Whiteaker claims a disability and has provided evidence of his disability. Likewise, as to the remaining elements of necessity and equal opportunity for a reasonable accommodation claim, the court again cites Whiteaker's evidentiary support for his claim of disability and need for the chickens to alleviate those symptoms against the fact the City has not presented any testimony, affidavits, or "evidence of any kind" to support its claim. Thus, the court denied the motion for summary judgment. | Case | |
| Waters v. Meakin | [1916] 2 KB 111 |
The respondent had been acquitted of causing unnecessary suffering to rabbits (contrary to the Protection of Animals Act 1911, s. 1(1)) by releasing them into a fenced enclosure from which they had no reasonable chance of escape, before setting dogs after them. Dismissing the prosecutor's appeal, the Divisional Court held that the respondent's conduct fell within the exception provided for "hunting or coursing" by sub-s. (3) (b) of s. 1of the 1911 Act. From the moment that the captive animal is liberated to be hunted or coursed, it falls outwith the protection of the 1911 Act, irrespective of whether the hunting or coursing is humane or sportsmanlike. |
Case | ||
| MI - Cruelty - 752.91. Sale of dyed or artificially colored baby chicks, rabbits or ducklings | M. C. L. A. 752.91 - 92 | MI ST 752.91 - 92 | This law makes it unlawful for any person, firm or corporation to sell, or offer for sale, any baby chicks, rabbits, ducklings, or other fowl or game which have been dyed or otherwise artificially colored. Violation is a misdemeanor. | Statute | |
| WV - Dangerous - § 19-20-21. License fee for keeping vicious or dangerous dog. | W. Va. Code, § 19-20-9a; § 19-20-20 - 21 | WV ST § 19-20-9a; § 19-20-20 to 21 | These West Virginia statutes provide that any person who owns or harbors any dog, cat or other domesticated animal, whether licensed or unlicensed, which bites any person, shall confine and quarantine the animal for a period of ten days for rabies observation. The state apparently has a prohibition against owning a dangerous dog, such that no person shall own, keep or harbor any dog known by him to be vicious, dangerous, or in the habit of biting or attacking other persons, whether or not such dog wears a tag or muzzle. However, another section provides that any person who keeps a dog which is generally considered to be vicious, for the purpose of protection, shall acquire a special license therefor from the county assessor and then keep the dog restrained/enclosed. | Statute | |
| European Union - Farming - Protection of Laying Hens | Official Journal L 203, 3 August 1999, pp. 53–57 | COUNCIL DIRECTIVE 1999/74/EC | This Directive establishes minimum standards for the protection of laying hens, particularly in respect to the equipment, drinking and feeding conditions, and facilities where the hens are kept. It does not apply to establishments with fewer than 350 laying hens, nor to establishments rearing breeding laying hens. It only applies to hens of the species Gallus gallus which have reached laying maturity and are kept for production of eggs not intended for hatching. | Administrative | |
| Stephanski v. Wimpy | Complaint against a vet. for malpractice. Plaintiff's dog died after it was neutered. Plaintiff sought non-economic damages. | Pleading | |||
| IN RE: ROSIA LEE ENNES | 45 Agric. Dec. 540 (1986) | 1986 WL 74679 (U.S.D.A.) | Civil penalty of $1,000 against unlicensed dealer was appropriate under 7 USCS § 2149(b), and greater penalty could have been requested where although moderate size of kennel suggested modest penalty, selling hundreds of dogs without license over 40-month period was grave violation of Animal Welfare Act, violations were not committed in good faith since dogs were knowingly and intentionally sold without license after receiving 4 warnings, and even though dealer thought mistakenly that Department would not prosecute her for such violations and there was no history of previous violations, the hundreds of violations proven were sufficient to warrant severe sanction. | Case |