Results
| Title | Citation | Alternate Citation | Agency Citation | Summary | Type |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| MI - Constitutional Provisions - § 5. State lands | M.C.L.A. Const. Art. 10, § 5 | M.C.L.A. Const. Art. 10, § 5 | This section describes the State legislature's authority over all state land and the requirement that all departments that have supervision or control of any state land submit an annual report as to the status of such land to the legislature | Statute | |
| People v. Arcidicono | 75 Misc. 2d 294 ((N.Y.Dist.Ct. 1973) | 347 N.Y.S.2d 850 (N.Y.Dist.Ct. 1973) |
The court held the bailee of a horse liable for failing to provide necessary sustenance to the horse, even though the owner of the horses had refused to pay for the necessary feed. |
Case | |
| State v. Crew | 281 N.C. App. 437, 868 S.E.2d 351, review denied, 890 S.E.2d 915 (N.C. 2023) | 2022-NCCOA-35, 2022 WL 151341 (N.C.App.,2022) | Defendant Daniel Crew appealed his convictions for dogfighting, felony cruelty to animals, misdemeanor cruelty to animals, and restraining dogs in a cruel manner. Crew also challenges the trial court's restitution orders totaling $70,000, which the trial court immediately converted to civil judgments. The arrest and conviction of defendant stemmed from an investigation at defendant's residence, where 30 pit bulls were recovered with injuries "similar to injuries a dog would sustain through dogfighting." In addition, publications and notes on preparing for a fight were found, as well as dogfighting training equipment such as a "jenny," staging area for fights, and weight scales for weighing dogs. The State charged Crew with fifteen counts of engaging in dogfighting, one count of allowing property to be used for dogfighting, five counts of felony cruelty to animals, twenty-five counts of misdemeanor cruelty to animals, and sixteen counts of restraining dogs in a cruel manner. Ultimately, Crew was convicted by the jury of eleven counts of dogfighting, three counts of felony cruelty to animals, fourteen counts of misdemeanor cruelty to animals, and two counts of restraining dogs in a cruel manner. The trial court imposed six consecutive active sentences of 10 to 21 months each along with several suspended sentences. The trial court also ordered Crew to pay Orange County Animal Services $10,000 in seven separate restitution orders that were then entered as civil judgments, totaling $70,000 in restitution (testimony at trial indicated that the cost to house the dogs alone was a "a littler over $80,000"). Defendant appealed his criminal judgment and petitioned for a writ of certiorari for the award of restitution entered as civil judgments. On appeal, this court rejected defendant's claim that there was insufficient evidence of dogfighting. The police found training equipment, medication commonly used in dogfighting operations, and a dogfighting "pit" or training area as well as the notes preparing dogs to fight. A reasonable juror could have concluded that Crew intended to engage in dogfighting. However, as to the restitution order converted to civil judgments, the court found that the trial court lacked the statutory authority to immediately convert those restitution orders into civil judgments. The court found no error concerning the criminal convictions, but vacated the conversion of the restitution to civil judgments against defendant. | Case | |
| Bess v. Bracken County Fiscal Court | 210 S.W.3d 177 (Ky.App.,2006) |
The primary issue in this Kentucky case is whether a Bracken County ordinance which bans the possession of pit bull terriers is inconsistent with the state law that addresses dangerous dogs. The lower court denied the plaintiff's motion and dismissed the complaint. On appeal, the Court of Appeals held that the ban of breed was a legitimate exercise of police power and did not deny dog owners procedural due process. Further, the ordinance did not infringe on constitutional right to travel because traveling with a pet is not a fundamental right and the ordinance does not treat residents and non-residents differently. |
Case | ||
| US - Lacey Act - Lacey Act Implementation Plan; Definitions for Exempt and Regulated Articles | FR Doc. 2013-16463 |
In response to recent amendments to the Lacey Act, we are establishing definitions for the terms “common cultivar” and “common food crop” and several related terms. The amendments to the Act expanded its protections to a broader range of plant species, extended its reach to encompass products, including timber, that derive from illegally harvested plants, and require that importers submit a declaration at the time of importation for certain plants and plant products. Common cultivars and common food crops are among the categorical exclusions to the provisions of the Act. The Act does not define the terms “common cultivar” and “common food crop” but instead gives authority to the U.S. Department of Agriculture and the U.S. Department of the Interior to define these terms by regulation. Our definitions specify which plants and plant products will be excluded from the provisions of the Act, including the declaration requirement. |
Administrative | ||
| IN - Cattle Slaughter - THE MADHYA PRADESH GOVANSH VADH PRATISHEDH ADHINIYAM, 2004 | 6 of 2004 | The law, specific to the state of Madhya Pradesh, criminalizes the slaughter of cows and their progeny, including bulls and bullocks. The Act criminalizes the possession and transport of beef and the transport of cows and their progeny for slaughter. The Act authorizes a competent authority to enter and inspect premises where they believe an offence under this Act has been or is likely to be committed. The state government must make rules for the economic rehabilitation of persons whose livelihoods have been affected by the Act. The Act imposes the burden or proof for an offence under the Act on the accused. | Statute | ||
| Thurston v. Carter | 92 A. 295 (Maine, 1914) | L.R.A. 1915C,359, 112 Me. 361, 92 A. 295, Am.Ann.Cas. 1917A,389 | This action of trespass is brought for the recovery of damages for the killing of the fox hound of plaintiff by defendant. Defendant claimed that he shot and killed the plaintiff's dog while it was chasing and worrying a cat belonging to and upon the land of the defendant. After the introduction of all the evidence, the court ordered a verdict for defendant. To this direction, plaintiff filed his bill of exceptions in which it is stipulated that if a cat is a domestic animal, the ruling below is to stand, otherwise judgment is to be entered for plaintiff in the sum of $50. | Case | |
| NJ - Humane Societies - 40:48-5.1. Contracts with humane societies where no pound established; advertisement unnecessary | N. J. S. A. 40:48-5.1 | NJ ST 40:48-5.1 | This law relates to municipalities that do not have public pounds for the keeping of stray dogs or cats.Those municipalities may contract with nonproift humane societies or similar associations that have been operating for one or more years for the keeping and redemption of those animals. | Statute | |
| NV - Exotic Wildlife - NAC 504.471 Restrictions on shipment, transportation and exportation of wildlife | NV ADC 504.471 | NAC 504.471 | This administrative provision restricts the shipment, transportation and exportation of wildlife subject to limited exceptions. | Administrative | |
| VT - Veterinary - CHAPTER 44. Veterinary Medicine. | 26 V.S.A. § 2401 - 2433 | VT ST T. 26 § 2401- 2433 | These are the state's veterinary practice laws. Among the provisions include licensing requirements, laws concerning the state veterinary board, veterinary records laws, and the laws governing disciplinary actions for impaired or incompetent practitioners. | Statute |