Results
| Title | Citation | Alternate Citation | Summary | Type |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| TRACKING THE ADC: RANCHERS' BOON, TAXPAYERS' BURDEN, WILDLIFE'S BANE | 3 Animal L. 163 (1997) | Approximately thirty-five million dollars are spent each year by the Animal Damage Control division of the U.S. Department of Agriculture to destroy predator animals that supposedly kill livestock. The methods by which the ADC kills these “predators” are appalling. Mr. Hoch argues that funding for this program is excessive, irresponsible, and raises serious ethical questions. He concludes that ADC activities should be terminated immediately. | Article | |
| TX - Fighting - § 42.10. Dog Fighting. | V. T. C. A., Penal Code § 42.10 | TX PENAL § 42.10 | Texas criminal statute that prohibits dog fighting. Actions ranging from causing a dog to fight with another to attending a dog fight as a spectator are prohibited. To constitute an offense, one must demonstrate the requisite intent of intentionally or knowingly. | Statute |
| Posnien v. Rogers | 533 P.2d 120 (Utah 1975) |
The plaintiff sought to recover damages for the defendant's negligence in the diagnosis and the treatment of plaintiff's brood mare, which resulted in the mare's infertility. Plaintiff was required to show that Dr. Rogers did not exercise the care and diligence as is ordinarily exercised by skilled veterinarians doing the same type of work in the community, and that the failure to exercise the required skill and care was the cause of the injury. Experts testified at trial that the care exercised by Dr. Rogers met the standard of care of veterinarians practicing in the area, and had they been treating the mare, the treatment would not have differed substantially from that of Dr. Rogers. The Supreme Court held that the record is clear that the plaintiff failed to sustain his burden that the care of Dr. Rogers did not meet the standard of care of other practitioners practicing in the community. |
Case | |
| RI - Education - § 16-22-20. Animal dissection and vivisection--Right to refuse--Alternate learning project required | Gen. Laws, 1956, § 16-22-20 | RI ST § 16-22-20 | This Rhode Island law provides that parents or legal guardians of any student in a public or nonpublic primary or secondary school may refuse to allow their child to dissect or vivisect any vertebrate or invertebrate animal, or any part of a vertebrate or invertebrate animal. Students who refuse shall not be discriminated against for not participating in dissection and shall be offered an alternative method of learning the material. | Statute |
| WI - Chickens, transport - 134.52. Shipment of chickens | W. S. A. 134.52 | WI ST 134.52 | This Wisconsin statute requires that poultry not be overcrowded and the shipping container must be at least 13 inches in high on the inside and covered at the top in a way that prevents the chickens from getting caught in the top. | Statute |
| PA - Ordinances - § 23144. To tax and destroy dogs | 53 P.S. § 23144 | PS ST 53 P.S. § 23144 | This briefly worded Pennsylvania statute presumably gives municipalities the authority "[t]o regulate and provide for taxing the owners and harborers of dogs, and to destroy dogs found at large contrary to any ordinance." | Statute |
| RSPCA v O'Loughlan | [2007] SASC 113 |
The appellant, the RSPCA, relied on the fact that a horse, once in RSPCA care, had a significantly improved condition in comparison to that described as 'emaciated' while in the respondent's care. The respondent claimed that the horse's condition fluctuated depending on the presence of mares in heat during summer and that she had tried several changes to the feed to counter a loss in weight. On appeal, the appellate judge did not disturb the trial judge's finding and confirmed that the respondent's conduct was reasonable in the circumstances. |
Case | |
| CASO 02437-2013 JANE MARGARITA CÓSAR CAMACHO Y OTROS CONTRA RESOLUCION DE FOJAS 258 | CASO 02437-2013 | Plaintiff, a blind woman, brought a constitutional grievance against the decision issued by the Fifth Civil Chamber of the Superior Court of Justice of Lima on January 15, 2013. This decision denied the action of protection after Defendants denied entry of Plaintiff's guide dog at their supermarkets. The Constitutional Tribunal ordered that the blind were allow to enter to the supermarkets with their guide dogs. | Case | |
| TX - Hunting - § 62.0125. Harassment of Hunters, Trappers, and Fishermen | V. T. C. A., Parks & Wildlife Code § 62.0125 | TX PARKS & WILD § 62.0125 | This law represents Texas' hunter harassment law, also known as the Sportsman's Rights Act. Under the section, a person may not intentionally interfere with another person lawfully engaged in the process of hunting or catching wildlife, or intentionally harass, drive, or disturb any wildlife for the purpose of disrupting lawful hunting. Violation is a Class B misdemeanor. It is an affirmative defense to prosecution that the defendant's conduct is protected by the right to freedom of speech under the constitution of this state or the United States. | Statute |
| NV - Cruelty - Consolidated Cruelty Statutes | N. R. S. 574.010 to 574.550; N.R.S. 202.487; N.R.S. 201.455 | NV ST 574.010 to 574.550; N.R.S. 202.487 | This comprehensive section comprises the Nevada anti-cruelty statutes. The section first empowers private prevention of cruelty to animals societies and outlines their powers and responsibilities, including the power to arrest. Under this section, "animal" does not include the human race, but includes every other living creature. Animal cruelty, as described in Section 574.100, prohibits the overdriving, overloading, torture, cruel beating or unjustifiable injuring, maiming, mutilation or killing of an animal, as well as the deprivation of necessary sustenance, food or drink. The first offense under this section is a misdemeanor with enhancement to a felony for a third or subsequent convictions. Animals fighting is also prohibited under the section, with enhanced sentences for subsequent convictions. Other specific crimes include mistreatment of dogs, abandonment of animals, poisoning (although the section does not prohibit the destruction of "noxious animals"), and basic requirements for the care of dogs and cats kept in kennels or sold by pounds or pet shops. | Statute |