Results
Displaying 6631 - 6638 of 6638
| Title | Citation | Alternate Citation | Summary | Type |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| CA - Racing - § 597h. Live animals; attaching to power propelled device to be pursued by dogs | West's Ann. Cal. Penal Code § 597h | CA PENAL § 597h | This statute makes it unlawful to tie, attach, or fasten any live animal to any machine or device propelled by any power for the purpose of causing such animal to be pursued by a dog or dogs. | Statute |
| American Dog Owners Ass'n, Inc. v. City of Lynn | 404 Mass. 73, 533 N.E.2d 642 (Mass.,1989) |
This is an appeal by American Dog Owners Association from a judgment upholding two of three city of Lynn ordinances which restrict ownership of certain dogs within the city limits. The lower court found that one of three animal control ordinances regulating “pit bulls” was unconstitutional. First, the Supreme Judicial Court held that the first two ordinances were repealed by passage of third which was intended to treat subject of pit bulls comprehensively. However, the court found that the third ordinance which attempted to define pit bull by breed was unconstitutionally vague. The court stated that, "if identification by breed name does not provide sufficient ascertainable standards for enforcement, then the “definition” of “Pit Bull” in the fourth ordinance, which is devoid of any reference to a particular breed, but relies instead on the even less clear 'common understanding and usage' of the term 'Pit Bull,' is not sufficiently definite to meet due process requirements." |
Case | |
| IN RE: STEVEN M. SAMEK AND TRINA JOANN SAMEK | 57 Agric. Dec. 185 (1998) | 1998 WL 1806357 (U.S.D.A.) | Respondent who is unable to afford attorney has no right to have counsel provided by government in disciplinary administrative proceedings conducted under Animal Welfare Act. | Case |
| People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, Inc. v. N. Carolina Farm Bureau Fed'n, Inc. | 60 F.4th 815 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 144 S. Ct. 325, 217 L. Ed. 2d 170 (2023), and cert. denied sub nom. Stein v. People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, Inc., 144 S. Ct. 326, 217 L. Ed. 2d 170 (2023) | Several animal welfare organizations including PETA sought to conduct undercover animal cruelty investigations in North Carolina, but were unable to do so because North Carolina's Property Protection Act prohibited employees from entering nonpublic areas of employer's premises to record or remove information and using that information to breach their duty of loyalty. PETA and other plaintiffs argue that the act violates their protected First Amendment rights and functions as a discriminatory speech restriction. North Carolina argues that the restrictions on speech are incidental, and the act protects against trespass and disloyalty. The United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina dismissed the complaint and the organizations appealed. The Court of Appeals then reversed and remanded. On remand here, the District Court held that the information gathered by the animal welfare organizations was protected speech and, thus, subject to strict scrutiny. . | Case | |
| MI - Poisonous Substances - § 750.437 Exposing poisonous substances where liable to be eaten by beasts | M.C.L.A. 750.437 | Mich. Comp. Laws Ann. § 750.437 (West) | This Michigan statute makes a person liable and guilty of a misdemeanor if any animal on the person's property is exposed to or consumes a known poisonous substance. The statute makes an exception for poisons that are mixed only with vegetables or poisons for the destruction of predatory or dangerous prowling animals. | Statute |
| SC - Lien, boarding - § 29-15-60. Animal boarding facilities; liens upon animals for boarding expenses. | Code 1976 § 29-15-60 | SC ST § 29-15-60 | This South Carolina law states that the owner of an animal boarding facility, at the end of an agreed upon term of boarding, shall have a lien upon any animal which is left for upkeep until the cost has been paid by the owner of the animal. The owner of the animal shall also be responsible for payment of the cost of care for the animal after notice of the lien. If the owner of the animal has not paid the cost after actual notice of the lien within ten days of such notice, the animal boarding facility owner may sell the animal after having advertised the time and place of the sale at least seven days before the sale is to be held. | Statute |
| US - Hunting - Airborne Hunting Act | 16 USC 742j-1 | This Act approved November 18, 1971 added to the Fish and Wildlife Act of 1956 a new section 13 (16 U.S.C. 742j-l), which is commonly referred to as the Airborne Hunting Act or Shooting from Aircraft Act, prohibits shooting or attempting to shoot or harassing any bird, fish, or other animal from aircraft except for certain specified reasons, including protection of wildlife, livestock, and human life as authorized by a Federal or State issued license or permit. States authorized to issue permits are required to file reports with the Secretary of the Interior containing information on any permits issued. | Statute | |
| AL - Veterinary - Chapter 29. Veterinarians. | Ala. Code 1975 § 34-29-1 - 135 | AL ST § 34-29-1 to 135 | 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 |