Results
| Title | Citation | Alternate Citation | Summary | Type | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| CA - Historical - 1872: Cruelty to Animals | Cal. Penal Code 597 (1872) | Enacted February 14, 1872 (almost identical with Field's Draft, Section 699), and then read: "Every person who maliciously kills, maims, or wounds an animal, the property of another, or who maliciously and cruelly beats, tortures, or injures any animal, whether belonging to himself or another, is guilty of a misdemeanor." | Statute | |||||||
| Derecho Animal Volume 8 Núm 2 |
|
Policy | ||||||||
| Commonwealth v. Creighton | 639 A.2d 1296 (Pa.Cmwlth.,1994) | 163 Pa.Cmwlth. 68 (1994) |
In this Pennsylvania case, a cat owner challenged a local ordinance that limited the number of cats she could own at her residence (she owned 25 cats that were rescued "mousers" from factories; the ordinance limited ownership to 5). The court noted that the preamble to the ordinance stated that pursuant to the Borough Code and "in the interest of preserving the public health, safety and general welfare of the residents ... [the Borough] desires to limit the number of dogs and cats kept by any one person and/or residence," but did not state what legitimate public health, safety and welfare goals the Borough sought to advance by enacting this ordinance. Thus, from the information before the court, it could not say whether the Borough ordinance here was a reasonable means to effectuate a legitimate governmental goal. |
Case | ||||||
| Gruber v. YMCA of Greater Indianapolis | 34 N.E.3d 264 (Ind. Ct. App. 2015) | 2015 WL 3534886 (Ind. Ct. App. 2015) | An eleven-year-old boy was at a YMCA camp when a pig—which had never injured anyone or exhibited any dangerous propensities—stuck its head between the bars of its pen and grabbed the boy's hand, causing injuries. The boy and his mother sued the camp, and the camp filed a motion for summary judgment. The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of the camp. On appeal, the boy and his mother asked the court to change the standard for liability of owners of domestic animals to that of strict liability when the animal was not a cat or dog. Since the Indiana Supreme Court precedent was clear that this general rule applied to all domestic animals—and not just cats and dogs—the court declined their invitation to alter the standard. The trial court's entry of summary judgment in favor of the camp was therefore affirmed. | Case | ||||||
| WA - Hunting - 77.15.210. Obstructing the taking of fish, shellfish, or wildlife--Penalty | West's RCWA 77.15.210 - 220 | WA ST 77.15.210 -220 | This set of laws represents Washington's hunter harassment provisions. Under the section, a person is guilty of obstructing the taking of fish, shellfish, or wildlife if the person harasses, drives, or disturbs fish, shellfish, or wildlife with the intent of disrupting lawful pursuit or taking, or if the person harasses, intimidates, or interferes with an individual engaged in the lawful taking. Violation is a gross misdemeanor. | Statute | ||||||
| PA - Furtaking - Subchapter D. Furtaking Regulations | 34 Pa.C.S.A. § 2361 - 2364 | PA ST 34 Pa.C.S.A. § 2361 - 2364 | These Pennsylvania statutes make it unlawful to take, kill, wound, capture or possess any furbearers except during open season and without a permit. It is also illegal to set traps closer than five feet from a den, use a pole trap, deadfall, poison, explosive, chemical, leg-hold trap with teeth on the jaws, to smoke out or dig out any den, to set or place a cage or box trap in the water, or use any trap unless tended every 36 hours and all animals are released or removed. A violation relating to bobcat or otter is a summary offense of the fourth degree; other violations are a summary offense of the fifth degree. | Statute | ||||||
| IN - Draught Animals - THE PREVENTION OF CRUELTY TO DRAUGHT AND PACK ANIMALS RULES, 1965 | Section 38 of the prevention of cruelty to Animals Act, 1960 | The Rules, drafted under Section 38(2) of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1965, regulate the weights that cattle and horses can draw. The Rules also stipulate the conditions under which animals may not be allowed to draw vehicles or carry loads. The Rules also prohibit the use of spiked sticks and bits. | Statute | |||||||
| James S. Cable, Plaintiff v. Burrows, Defendant |
This California judgment awarded no money to plaintiff on his claims. |
Pleading | ||||||||
| IL - Testing - 620/17.2. Cosmetic testing on animals | 410 I.L.C.S. 620/17.2 | IL ST CH 410 § 620/17.2 | This law from 2019 makes it unlawful for a manufacturer to import for profit, sell, or offer for sale in this State any cosmetic, if the cosmetic was developed or manufactured using an animal test that was conducted or contracted by the manufacturer, or any supplier of the manufacturer, on or after January 1, 2020. There is an exception when an ingredient is in wide use and cannot be replaced by another ingredient capable of performing a similar function; a specific human health problem is substantiated and the need to conduct animal tests is justified and supported by a detailed research protocol proposed as the basis for the evaluation; and there is not a nonanimal alternative method accepted for the relevant endpoint by the relevant federal or State regulatory authority. | Statute | ||||||
| Re The International Fund for Animal Welfare (Australia) Pty Ltd and Ors and Minister for Environment and Heritage | (2006) 42 AAR 262 | [2006] AATA 94 |
Zoos in New South Wales and Victoria sought to import five Asian elephants. After an initial hearing, further evidence was sought in relation to the condition and nature of the facilities at the zoos. The Tribunal decided that the importation of the elephants should be in accordance with a permit issued under s 303CG of the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (Cth). |
Case |