Results
| Title | Citation | Alternate Citation | Summary | Type |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| U.S. v. Mackie | 681 F.2d 1121 (D.C. Cir. 1982) |
Defendants challenge their eagle convictions under the MBTA, alleging that they should have been charged under the more specific BGEPA. Court holds the government may elect to proceed under either statute; nothing in the language or legislative history proscribes prosecution under the more general MBTA. For further discussion on the intersection of the MBTA and the BGEPA, see Detailed Discussion of Eagle Act. |
Case | |
| TX - Veterinary - Chapter 801. Veterinarians. | V. T. C. A., Occupations Code § 801.001 - 557 | TX OCC § 801.001 - 557 | 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 |
| Friedli v. Kerr | 2001 WL 177184 (Tenn. 2001) |
This case involves two passengers who were injured when the horse-drawn carriage that they were riding in turned over after the horse was startled and the driver lost control of the horse. The trial court held, and the court of appeals affirmed, that the defendant’s carriage business was not immune from liability to its passengers under Tennessee’s equine liability statute. There were three reasons for this decision: 1) the defendant is not an “equine activity sponsor,” 2) his business is not an “equine activity,” and 3) the plaintiffs were not “participants” engaging in an “equine activity” when they were injured. |
Case | |
| CA - Education - Chapter 2.3. Pupils' Rights to Refrain from the Harmful or Destructive Use of Animals | West's Ann. Cal. Educ. Code § 32255 - 32255.6 | CA EDUC § 32255 - 32255.6 | This California chapter of laws concerns students refraining from engaging in animal dissection in education institutions. Under Section 32255.1, any pupil (defined as under age 18) with a moral objection to dissecting or otherwise harming or destroying animals, or any parts thereof, shall notify his or her teacher regarding this objection. If the pupil refrains from such participation, he or she and the teacher may work to develop an alternate education project. The pupil shall not be discriminated against based upon his or her decision to exercise his or her rights pursuant to this chapter. A pupil's objection to participating in an educational project pursuant to this section shall be substantiated by a note from his or her parent or guardian. | Statute |
| WA - Wildlife - 77.15.790. Negligently feeding, attempting to feed, or attracting large wild carnivores to land or a building--I | West's RCWA 77.15.790, 792 | WA ST 77.15.790, 792 | These two Washington laws deal with the unauthorized feeding of large wild carnivores. A person may not negligently feed or attempt to feed large wild carnivores or negligently attract large wild carnivores to land or a building. If a person who is issued a written warning fails to contain, move, or remove the food, food waste, or other substance as directed, the person commits an infraction under chapter 7.84 RCW. | Statute |
| PA - Dangerous - § 459-507-A. Construction of article (dangerous dogs) | 3 P.S. § 459-507-A | PA ST 3 P.S. § 459-507-A | This Pennsylvania statute provides the construction of the dangerous dog chapter in the state. It outlines the exceptions under the dangerous dog law as well as the enforcement procedure for one who is attacked by such dog. It also specifically states that any provisions of local ordinances relating to dangerous dogs are hereby abrogated. Further, a local ordinance otherwise dealing with dogs may not prohibit or otherwise limit a specific breed of dog. | Statute |
| Adams v Reahy | [2007] NSWSC 1276 |
The first respondent claimed that despite their best efforts their dog was unable to gain weight and appeared emaciated. When proceedings were instituted, the first respondent was successful in being granted a permanent stay as the appellant, the RSPCA, failed to grant the first respondent access to the dog to determine its current state of health. On appeal, it was determined that a permanent stay was an inappropriate remedy and that the first respondent should be granted a temporary stay only until the dog could be examined. |
Case | |
| Chile - Cruelty - LEY 21.020 | LEY 21.020 (1106037) | This law establishes the rights and responsibilities of those in possession of companion animals and establishes general duties such as adequate treatment, and meeting the needs of the animal according to their species. Some important aspects of this law include the prohibition of companion animal fighting when it is organized as an event, the training of animals to reinforce aggressive behavior, and the sacrifice of animals as a method of population control. It also prohibits the abandonment of animals and the selling of animals in the streets. It strengthens penalties for animal cruelty in the criminal code and Law No. N°20.380 (Animal protection statute), and imposes jail time and an absolute prohibition to possess animals for those found to commit animal cruelty. | Statute | |
| TX - Hunting, canned - § 62.015. Hunting and Possession of Exotic Animals | V.T.C.A., Parks & Wildlife Code § 62.015 | TX PARKS & WILD § 62.015 | This Texas law provides that no person on a public road or on the right-of-way of a public road may hunt an exotic animal. In addition, no person may hunt on the land of another for an exotic animal without the express consent of the owner of the land to hunt for exotic animals. A person who violates this section commits an offense that is a Class A Parks and Wildlife Code misdemeanor. | Statute |
| NV - Dog Ordinance - 244.359. Ordinance concerning control of animals | N. R. S. 244.359 | NV ST 244.359 | This Nevada statute provides that each board of county commissioners may enact and enforce an ordinance related to dogs including licensing, regulating or prohibiting the running at large and disposal of all kinds of animals, establishing a pound, designating an animal as inherently dangerous and requiring the owner of such an animal to obtain a policy of liability insurance, among other things. | Statute |