Results
| Title | Citation | Alternate Citation | Summary | Type |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| NM - Equine Activity Liability - Article 13. Equine Liability | NMSA 1978, § 42-13-1 to 42-13-5 | NM ST § 42-13-1 to 42-13-5 | This act stipulates that any person, corporation or partnership is immune from liability for the death or injury of a rider, which resulted while the rider was engaged in an equine activity. However, there are exceptions to this rule: a person, corporation, or partnership will be held liable for injuries if he or she displays a conscious, reckless, or intentional disregard for the safety of the rider, and if the person, corporation, or partnership fails to make reasonable and prudent efforts in ensuring the safety of the rider. | Statute |
| MD - Humane Slaughter - Maryland Wholesome Meat Act | MD Code, Agriculture, § 4-101 - 131 | MD AGRIC § 4-101 - 131 | This section comprises Maryland's "Wholesome Meat Act." Included are laws related to licensing of slaughtering establishments, labeling of meat, and the state's humane slaughter provisions. The humane slaughter provisions state that it is the policy of the State to prevent inhumane methods of livestock slaughter at an official establishment. Humane methods include those by which livestock are rendered insensible to pain, by a single blow or gunshot, or by an electrical, chemical, or other rapid and effective means, before being shackled, hoisted, thrown, cast, or cut. Ritual slaughter defined by statute is also considered humane if done in compliance with the act. Use of a manually operated hammer, sledge, or poleax during a slaughtering operation is considered inhumane. Note that "livestock" here explicitly excludes poultry or other fowl. A person who violates this section is guilty of a misdemeanor and on conviction is subject to a fine not exceeding $100 for each violation. | Statute |
| State ex rel. Zobel v. Burrell | 167 S.W.3d 688 (Mo. 2005) |
After a judge granted two humane societies permission to dispose of nearly 120 severely emaciated and malnourished horses, the horses' owner, instead of posting a bond or security, filed for a writ of mandamus with the court of appeals. The appeals court issued a stop order and transferred the case to the Missouri Supreme Court. Here, the horses’ owner argued two points, but the Missouri Supreme Court found that (1) the spoliation of evidence doctrine does not apply at this juncture and that (2) the statute was not unconstitutionally vague, nor does the owner allege that the statute discriminates based upon classification or that the statute discriminates in its application so as to violate the equal protection clause. The stop order was therefore dissolved and the petition for the writ of mandamus was denied. |
Case | |
| Stauber v. Shalala | 895 F.Supp. 1178 (W.D.Wis.,1995) |
Court found that milk consumers failed to prove that milk gained from rBST-treated cows contains higher levels of antibiotics, tastes different, or differs in any noticeable way from "ordinary" milk. That consumers might demand mandatory labeling was not enough to require labeling; rather, the FDA was required to ensure that products are not misbranded and consumer demand could not require the FDA to forgo this duty. |
Case | |
| Animal Law Index Volume 18, Part 2 |
Animal Law Review Volume 18, Issue 2 (Spring 2012)
|
Policy | ||
| MS - Slaughter - Chapter 35. Meat Inspection | Miss. Code Ann. § 75-35-1 to 75-35-327 | MS ST § 75-35-1 to 75-35-327 |
These Mississippi statutes regulate meat products, animal slaughter, inspection and branding. Animals to be slaughtered must examined and slaughtered humanely, which means being “rendered insensible to pain... before being shackled, hoisted, thrown, cast or cut.” Meat and meat products must be labeled “Mississippi inspected and passed.” Any violation of the provisions may result in imprisonment and/or a fine. |
Statute |
| IL - Ordinances - 5/3. Appointment of administrator; | 510 I.L.C.S. 5/3 | IL ST CH 510 § 5/3 | This Illinois statute provides that the County Board Chairman with the consent of the County Board shall appoint an Administrator who may appoint as many Animal Control Wardens to aid him or her as authorized by the Board. The Board is authorized by ordinance to require the registration and microchipping of dogs and cats and shall impose an individual animal and litter registration fee. All persons selling dogs or cats or keeping registries of dogs or cats shall cooperate and provide information to the Administrator as required by the Board. | Statute |
| State v. Hanson | 89 P.3d 544 (Kansas, 2004) | 2004 WL 1077319 (Kansas), 277 Kan. 855 (2004) |
Defendant's dogs were released by owner, resulting in their attack of a neighbor's dog and its subsequent death. On appeal, the conviction was reversed for failure to show owner had knowledge of vicious propensity. |
Case |
| IN RE: JAMES W. HICKEY, D/B/A S&S FARMS, AND S.S. FARMS, INC. | 47 Agric. Dec. 840 (1988) | 1988 WL 243389 (U.S.D.A.) | Licensed dealer found guilty of numerous violations of Act involving care and housing of dogs and cats, failure to allow inspection of records, and failure to keep and maintain adequate records as to acquisition and disposition of animals, is properly penalized with 25-year suspension of license, civil penalty of $40,000, and cease and desist order. | Case |
| WI - Domestic Violence - 813.12. Domestic abuse restraining orders and injunctions | Wis. Stat. Ann. § 813.12, 813.122, 813.123 | W. S. A. 813.12, 813.122, 813.123 | These Wisconsin statutes concern restraining orders or injunctions in domestic abuse cases, child abuse cases, and cases filed by "individuals as risk." In each of these laws, there are protections for “household pets,” defined as domestic animals that are not farm animals, as defined in s. 951.01(3), that are kept, owned, or cared for by the petitioner or by a family member or a household member of the petitioner. In both cases of domestic abuse and child abuse, a judge or circuit court commissioner shall issue a temporary restraining order ordering the respondent to refrain from removing, hiding, damaging, harming, or mistreating, or disposing of, a household pet, to allow the petitioner or a family member or household member of the petitioner acting on his or her behalf to retrieve a household pet, or any combination of these remedies requested in the petition. The domestic abuse and child abuse laws then outline the procedures for obtaining an injunction that includes those protections for domestic pets if requirements are met under the laws. In section 813.123, an "individual at risk," may also seek a TRO and injunction that orders the respondent to refrain from removing, hiding, damaging, harming, or mistreating, or disposing of, a household pet and allow the individual at risk or a guardian, guardian ad litem, family member, or household member of the individual at risk acting on his or her behalf to retrieve a household pet. | Statute |