Results
| Title | Citation | Alternate Citation | Agency Citation | Summary | Type |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| NV - Migratory bird - 503.620. Protection of birds included in Migratory Bird Treaty Act | N.R.S. 503.620 | NV ST 503.620 | This Nevada law makes it unlawful for any person to hunt or take any dead or alive birds, nests of birds or eggs of birds protected by the Migratory Bird Treaty Act of July 3, 1918 (16 U.S.C. §§ 703 et seq.) or accompanying regulations. | Statute | |
| VA - Veterinarian Issues - Professional Conduct | 18 VA ADC 150-20-140 | 18 VAC 150-20-140 | The following regulation lists what is considered unprofessional conduct by a Virginia veterinarian. Violation of this regulation may result in a refusal to grant or renew a license; or may result in a suspension or revocation of a license, as described in § 54.1-3807(5) of the Code of Virginia. Subsection 14 states that "[f]ailing to report suspected animal cruelty to the appropriate authorities" is unprofessional conduct. | Administrative | |
| New Zealand - Animal Welfare - Code for Layer Hens 1999 | Code of Animal Welfare No. 18 | In New Zealand, hens are kept under conditions ranging from large commercial enterprises where the birds are totally reliant on humans for all their daily requirements to free-ranging hens which have access to outdoor runs or pasture. Provided those concerned with the day-to-day care of the hens treat them with skill and consideration, their welfare can be safeguarded under a variety of management systems. The code takes account of five basic requirements: freedom from thirst, hunger and malnutrition, the provision of appropriate comfort and shelter, the prevention, or rapid diagnosis and treatment, of injury, disease or infection, freedom from distress, and the ability to display normal patterns of behavior. | Statute | ||
| Snead v. Society for Prevention of Cruelty to Animals of Pennsylvania | 929 A.2d 1169 (Pa.Super., 2007) | 2007 PA Super 204, 2007 WL 1990510 (Pa.Super.) |
This Pennsylvania case involves cross-appeals following a jury trial in which defendant SPCA, was found liable for euthanizing the dogs belonging to plaintiff Snead, who was awarded damages in the amount of $154,926.37, including $100,000 in punitive damages. The facts stemmed from a seizure several dogs at a seemingly abandoned property owned by Snead where Snead was arrested on dog fighting charges, which were then dropped the next day. However, Snead was not aware that the charges were dropped and that the dogs were therefore available to be reclaimed. The dogs were ultimately euthanized after Snead went to reclaim them. On appeal, this court first held that the SPCA does not operate as a branch of the Commonwealth and therefore, does not enjoy the protection of sovereign immunity or protection under the Pennsylvania Tort Claims Act. The court held that there was sufficient evidence presented for Snead's Sec. 1983 to go to the jury that found the SPCA has inadequate procedures/policies in place to safeguard Snead's property interest in the dogs. As to damages, the court found the there was no evidence to impute to the SPCA evil motive or reckless indifference to the rights of Snead sufficient for an award of punitive damages. |
Case | |
| State ex rel. Humane Society of Missouri v. Beetem | 317 S.W.3d 669 (Mo.App. W.D.,2010) | 2010 WL 3167457 (Mo.App. W.D.) |
The "Missourians for Protection of Dogs" ("MPD") advocated a statewide ballot measure to enact a new statutory provision to be known as the "Puppy Mill Cruelty Prevention Act." The certified ballot title included a summary statement reading: "Shall Missouri law be amended to: . . . create a misdemeanor crime of ‘puppy mill cruelty’ for any violations?" One taxpaying Missouri citizen, Karen Strange, subsequently filed a Petition for Declaratory Judgment and Injunctive Relief against the Secretary of State, challenging the summary statement as being "insufficient and unfair." In this action, the Humane Society of Missouri sought protection from an order of the circuit court requiring it to disclose and turn over Document 10 - a series of focus group findings and related documentation developed by the Humane Society of Missouri and its partners to formulate political strategy. Writing on behalf of the Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District, Judge Victor C. Howard, with all concurring, granted the HSMO’s writ of prohibition. HSMO’s preliminary writ of prohibition was made absolute, rendering Document 10 non-discoverable. |
Case | |
| TN - Nashville - Title 8 - ANIMALS | Title 8 - ANIMALS |
These are the animal ordinances for the Metro Government of Nashville and Davidson County, Tennessee. These laws include dog laws (including vicious dogs), wildlife and animal control regulations. |
Local Ordinance | ||
| CA - Rabies - Chapter 1. Rabies Control. | West's Ann. Cal. Health & Safety Code § 121575 - 121710 | CA HLTH & S § 121575 - § 121710 | This chapter of California laws deals with rabies control. | Statute | |
| ME - Cruelty, reporting - § 4011-A. Reporting of suspected abuse or neglect | 22 M. R. S. A. § 4011-A | ME ST T. 22 § 4011-A | This Maine statute relates to mandatory reporting of suspected child abuse or neglect and permissive reporting of suspected animal abuse or neglect. With regard to animal-related issues, subsection (1)(A)(29) requires a humane agent employed by the Department of Agriculture, Conservation and Forestry to report suspected child abuse or neglect as outlined in the statute. Subsection (1-A) makes an animal control officer (as defined in Title 7, section 3907, subsection 4) a "permitted reporter" who may report to the department when that person knows or has reasonable cause to suspect that a child has been or is likely to be abused or neglected. Finally, subsection (6) allows all the described reporters in subsection (1) to be permissive reporters of suspected animal cruelty, abuse, or neglect. These individuals may report a reasonable suspicion of animal cruelty, abuse or neglect to the local animal control officer or to the animal welfare program of the Department of Agriculture, Conservation and Forestry. | Statute | |
| IL - Cruelty - CRUELTY TO ANIMALS LAW (ANIMAL PROTECTION) | CRUELTY TO ANIMALS LAW (ANIMAL PROTECTION), 5754-1994 |
This law represents Isreal's anti-cruelty law. The law provides that no person shall torture, treat cruelly or in any way abuse any animal. It also states that no person shall incite one animal against another or organise a contest between animals. The cutting into live tissue of an animal for cosmetic purposes is also prohibited. |
Statute | ||
| US - AWA - Animal Welfare; Inspection, Licensing, and Procurement of Animals | 2004 WL 1561072 (F.R.) | Docket No. 97-121-3 |
Several changes and updates have been made to the licensing requirements, the procedures for licenses renewals, and restrictions upon acquisitions of dogs, cats, and other animals. Although there have been several minor changes, with little affect to the regulation, there have been some more significant changes as well. The new regulation seems to tighten restrictions, and provides specific guidelines for license applicants. |
Administrative |