Results
| Title | Citation | Alternate Citation | Summary | Type |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| LA - Hunting - § 116.5. Computer-assisted remote hunting prohibited; penalties | LSA-R.S. 56:116.5 | This Louisiana law provides that it is a class six violation for any person to engage in computer-assisted remote hunting or provide or operate a facility or provide services that allow others to engage in computer-assisted remote hunting. | Statute | |
| DE - Tether, dog - Chapter 9. Dogs. | 16 Del.C. § 3044F | DE ST TI 16 § 3044F | This Delaware statute addresses the requirements for indoor and outdoor facilities housing dogs. It includes storage, drainage, waste disposal, ventilation, lighting, shelter, height, and surface requirements. Food, water, and use of tethers are also addressed. The tether shall be of a type commonly used for the size dog involved, made of material not normally susceptible to being severed by the dog through chewing or otherwise, and shall be attached to the dog by means of a well-fitted collar that will not cause trauma or injury to the dog. The tether shall be a minimum of 10 feet in length and allow the dog convenient access to the dog house and to food and water containers. | Statute |
| Stoffels v. Harmony Hill Farm | 2006 WL 3699549 (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 2006) |
An owner of a horse farm acquired a new horse that had only recently been broken in and got a woman with some health problems to ride the horse. The horse bucked and threw the defendant off the horse causing injury. The court held that even though riders assume the risk of most injuries, a horse owner can be liable for failure to take reasonable measures to match the rider to a suitable horse. |
Case | |
| Phillip v. State | 721 S.E.2d 214 (Ga.App., 2011) | 2011 WL 6187084 (Ga.App.); 313 Ga.App. 302 (2011) |
Defendant was sentenced to 17 years imprisonment after entering a non-negotiated guilty plea to 14 counts of dogfighting and two counts of aggravated cruelty to animals. Upon motion, the Court of Appeals held that the sentence was illegal and void because all counts, which were to run concurrently, had the maximum prison sentence of five years. |
Case |
| Ley de Protección a los Animales de la Ciudad de México | Ley de Protección Animal | This law seeks to protect animals, ensure their welfare, and provide attention, good treatment, maintenance, lodging, natural development, and health. Furthermore, it aims to avoid mistreatment, cruelty, suffering, bestiality, and deformation of their physical characteristics, as well as to ensure animal health, public health, and the five freedoms of the animal. | Statute | |
| TX - Trade - Shark Fins | V.T.C.A., Parks & Wildlife Code §§ 66.216; 66.2161; 66.218 | TX PARKS & WILD §§ 66.216; 66.2161; 66.218 | Effective July 1, 2106: a person may not buy or offer to buy, sell or offer to sell, possess for the purpose of sale, transport, or ship for the purpose of sale, barter, or exchange a shark fin regardless of where the shark was taken or caught. A person who violates Section 66.2161 or a proclamation adopted under that section commits an offense that is a Class B Parks and Wildlife Code misdemeanor. | Statute |
| IA - Equine Activity Liability Statute - Chapter 673. Domesticated Animal Activities. | I. C. A. § 673.1 - .6 | IA ST § 673.1 - 673.6 | This Iowa statute provides that a domesticated animal professional, sponsor, or exhibitor is not liable for the damages, injury, or death suffered by a participant or spectator resulting from the inherent risks of a domesticated animal activity. However, this section shall not apply to the extent that the claim for damages, injury, or death is caused by an act committed intentionally, recklessly, or while under the influence of an alcoholic beverage or other drug, the knowing use of faulty equipment or tack, the failure to notify a participant of a known dangerous latent condition on real property in which the defendant holds an interest, a domesticated animal activity which occurs in a place designated as a place for persons who are not participants to be present, or a domesticated animal activity which causes damages, injury, or death to a spectator who is in a place where a reasonable person would not expect a domesticated animal activity to occur. Not only does the statute require the displaying of warning signs alerting participants to the limitation of liability of the equine operators, but in cases where a written contract is executed, special provisions must be present on the contract. | Statute |
| CA - Horse docking - § 597p. Docked horses; registration; time; fee; certificate | West's Ann. Cal. Penal Code § 597p | CA PENAL § 597p | This statute requires every owner, or user of any docked horse, within the State of California, to register his or her docked horse. | Statute |
| Silver v. State | 23 A.3d 867 (Md. App., 2011) | 2011 WL 2437286 (Md. App., 2011); 420 Md. 415 (2011) |
Defendants were sentenced by the District Court after pleading guilty to one count of animal cruelty. After defendants were convicted in the Circuit Court, they petitioned for a writ of certiorari. The Court of Appeals held that the Circuit Court could order that defendants pay restitution for the euthanasia cost for the deceased horse, but it was beyond the court’s authority to order defendants pay restitution for costs of caring for the two surviving horses because defendants had not been convicted in those cases. The court also held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in refusing to strike officer's testimony for prosecutor's failure to provide the officer's written report prior to trial. Finally, photos and testimony regarding the surviving horses were “crime scene” evidence and not inadmissible “other crimes” evidence because the neglect of the surviving horses was part of the same criminal episode. |
Case |
| U.S. v. Molt | 599 F.2d 1217 (3rd Cir. 1979) | 1979 U.S. App. LEXIS 14380 |
Defendants were indicted for conspiracy to smuggle snakes and other reptiles into the United States in violation of the Lacey Act, 18 U.S.C.S. § 43. The district court granted defendants' motion to dismiss counts based on alleged violations of the laws of Fiji and of Papua New Guinea, finding that foreign laws and regulations referred to in the statute were designed and intended for the protection of wildlife in those countries. On appeal, the trial court's order dismissing an indictment against defendants for smuggling wildlife was affirmed as to Fiji, where the regulation relied on was a revenue ordinance. The court reversed as to Papua New Guinea where the law was intended to protect wildlife in the country of origin. |
Case |