Results
| Title | Citation | Alternate Citation | Summary | Type | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Brackett v. State | 236 S.E.2d 689 (Ga.App. 1977) | 142 Ga.App. 601 (Ga.App. 1977) |
In this Georgia case, appellants were convicted of the offense of cruelty to animals upon evidence that they were spectators at a cockfight. The Court of Appeals agreed with the appellants that the evidence was insufficient to support the conviction, and the judgment was reversed. The court found that the statute prohibiting cruelty to animals was meant to include fowls as animals and thus proscribed cruelty to a gamecock. However, the evidence that defendants were among the spectators at a cockfight was insufficient to sustain their convictions. |
Case | ||||||
| TN - Rabies - Chapter 8. Rabies. § 68-8-108. Transportation. | T. C. A. § 68-8-108 | TN ST § 68-8-108 | This Tennessee statute provides that this chapter related to rabies shall not prohibit the transportation of dogs or cats in the state; provided, that the dogs or cats are securely confined or kept on a leash while being transported in the state. | Statute | ||||||
| ABC- Test | DFthysyhkfhkjdgh | Policy | ||||||||
| Lee v. State | 973 N.E.2d 1207 (Ind.App. 2012) | 2012 WL 3775862 (Ind.App. 2012) |
An attendant of a dog fight was convicted of a Class A misdemeanor under section 35-46-3-4 of the Indiana Code. On appeal, the defendant-appellant argued that the statute was unconstitutionally vague and that the statute invited arbitrary law enforcement, which violated the Due Process clause of the U.S. Constitution. Though the appeals court found the defendant-appellant had waived her constitutional claims by not filing a motion at the bench trial, the appeals court found her claims lacked merit. The defendant-appellant’s conviction was therefore upheld. |
Case | ||||||
| Canada - Ontario - Ontario Statutes - Ontario Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act | R.S.O. 1990, c. O.36, s. 1 - 19 |
This set of laws comprises Ontario, Canada's Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act. The object of the Society is to facilitate and provide for the prevention of cruelty to animals and their protection and relief therefrom. The laws outline the requirements for formation and operation of the Society as well as the guidelines under which members can assist animals in distress. Section 15 provides the standards of care for keeping cats or dogs for breeding or sale. 2015 amendments include the prohibition on the sale, purchase, and breeding of orcas. |
Statute | |||||||
| U.S. v. Molt | 631 F.2d 258 (3rd Cir. 1980) | 1980 U.S. App. LEXIS 13223; 10 ELR 20777 |
The court affirmed a judgment of sentence entered following defendant's conditional plea of guilty to smuggling and to violating the Lacey Act. The court held that the district court properly denied defendant's Speedy Trial Act motion where defendant incorrectly computed the number of excludable days. Therefore, the court concluded that more than 120 non-excludable days did not elapse between the indictment and the trial. |
Case | ||||||
| WA - Fur - Chapter 77.15. Fish and Wildlife Enforcement Code (Unlawful Trapping Provisions) | West's RCWA 77.15.190 - 194 | WA ST 77.15.190 - 194 | This set of Washington laws describes unlawful trapping. A person is guilty of misdemeanor unlawful trapping if the person sets out traps without the necessary licenses or permits; violates any rule on seasons or bag limits; or fails to identify the owner of the traps or devices with a tag or inscription. The director may revoke the trapper's license of a person placing unauthorized traps on private property and may remove those traps. It is unlawful to use or authorize the use of any steel-jawed leghold trap, neck snare, or other body-gripping trap to capture any mammal for recreation or commerce in fur except as provided in Section 77.15.194. | Statute | ||||||
| PA - Endangered Species - Chapter 104. Wild Resource Conservation | 34 Pa.C.S.A. § 2167; 34 Pa.C.S.A. § 2924; 34 Pa.C.S.A. § 925; 32 P.S. §§ 5301 - 14 | This set of Pennsylvania laws comprises the state's endangered species provisions. Section 2167 makes it unlawful for any person to bring into or remove from this Commonwealth, or to possess, transport, capture or kill, or attempt, aid, abet or conspire to capture or kill, any wild bird or wild animal, or any part thereof, or the eggs of any wild bird, which are endangered or threatened species. It is the duty of every officer having authority to enforce this title to seize all wild birds or wild animals, or any part thereof, or the eggs of any wild bird, which have been declared endangered or threatened. Any commerce in endangered species is also prohibited. For a first violation, a person may have his or her hunting privileges revoked for 7 years. A second violation during that period may result in forfeiture of the privilege to hunt for 10 years. A third violation brings the forfeiture to 15 years. | Statute | |||||||
| CO - Circus - § 33-1-126. Prohibiting certain animals in a traveling animal act--short title--definitions | C. R. S. A. § 33-1-126 | The Traveling Animal Protection Act, effective in 2021, bans the use of several listed animals in performances and traveling animal acts. Among other listed families include members of the wild felidae (cat) family, marsupial family, nonhuman primate family, elephant family, and seal family. This law does not prohibit exhibition at a wildlife sanctuary, AZA accredited institution, certain environmental education programs, livestock exhibition including rodeos, use in films,and university usage done in compliance with the AWA. | Statute | |||||||
| Derecho Animal Volume 6 Núm 3 |
|
Policy |