Results
| Title | Citation | Alternate Citation | Summary | Type |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| NC - Initiatives - Right to Hunt and Fish Amendment | Session Law 2018 - 96 | This amendment would acknowledge the right to hunt, fish and harvest wildlife, and to use traditional methods to hunt, fish and harvest wildlife. The amendment does not define “traditional methods.” | Statute | |
| VA - Impound - § 3.2-6545. Regulation of sale of animals procured from animal shelters | Va. Code Ann. § 3.2-6545 | VA ST § 3.2-6545 | This Virginia statute provides that any city, county or town which supports an animal shelter may by ordinance provide that no person who acquires an animal from a shelter shall be able to sell such animal within a period of six months from the time the animal is acquired from the shelter. Violation of such an ordinance shall constitute a misdemeanor. | Statute |
| OH - Livestock - Chapter 904. Livestock Care Standards | R.C. § 904.01 - 904.09 | OH ST § 904.01 - 904.09 | These Ohio statutes establish the Ohio livestock care standards board and Ohio livestock care standards fund. The statutes make it illegal to falsify any plans, specifications, data, reports, records, or other information required to be kept or submitted to the director of agriculture or the board. | Statute |
| MO - Independence - Breed - Sec. 3.03.006. Keeping of Pit Bulls Prohibited | INDEPENDENCE, MO. MUNICIPAL CODE § 3.03.006 (2006) |
The municipal code of Independence, Missouri makes it unlawful to own, possess, transport, or sell any pit bull with exceptions. However, the pit bull ban does not apply to registered show dogs that meet certain requirements or dogs whose owners have received a pit bull license on or before the date the ordinance was enacted. Requirements for ownership include an owner who is at least 18 years old, sterilization of the dog, and liability insurance of at least $300,000. Violations may result in a fine of $500, 60 days in jail, and immediate sterilization of the dog, impoundment, and disposal. |
Local Ordinance | |
| State v. Pierce | State v. Pierce, 7 Ala. 728 (1845) |
The Defendant was charge with cruelty to animals for the killing of a certain spotted bull, belonging some person to the jurors unknow. The lower court found the Defendant guilty. The Defendant then appealed to the Supreme Court seeking review of whether the defense of provocation could be used. The Court determined the answer to be yes. Thus the Court reversed and remanded the case. |
Case | |
| SD - Licenses - 40-34-5. Running at large prohibited by county--County license or tax on dogs | S D C L § 40-34-5 | SD ST § 40-34-5 | This South Dakota statute provides that the board of county commissioners of each of the counties shall have the power to regulate, restrain or prohibit the running at large of dogs and to impose a license or tax on all dogs not licensed or taxed under municipal ordinance, owned or kept by any person within the county. | Statute |
| NH - Cruelty - Consolidated Cruelty Laws | N.H. Rev. Stat. § 644:8 - 644:8-g; N.H. Rev. Stat. § 437-B:1 | NH ST § 644:8 - 644:8-g; § 437-B:1 | These New Hampshire statutes provide the animals anti-cruelty and animal fighting provisions for the state. Included are general anti-cruelty laws for any animal (including domestic and wild animals), exhibitions of fighting animals, provisions for protection of animals riding in motor vehicles, restrictions related to docking the tail of a horse, provisions for the use of animals in science classes or fairs, laws against maiming or willfully interfering with police dogs or horses, laws related to the willful interference with organizations or projects involving animals, and provisions related to dogs riding in pick-up trucks. | Statute |
| Elisea v. State | 777 N.E.2d 46 (Ind. App. 2002) |
Defendant was convicted of cruelty to animals and practicing veterinary medicine without a license after cropping several puppies' ears with a pair of office scissors while under no anesthesia. Defendant maintained that the evidence is insufficient to support the conviction for cruelty to an animal because the State failed to present sufficient evidence to rebut and overcome his defense that he engaged in a reasonable and recognized act of handling the puppies. The court held that the evidence supported conviction for cruelty under the definition of "torture." Further the evidence supported conviction for unauthorized practice where defendant engaged in a traditional veterinary surgical procedure and received remuneration for his services. |
Case | |
| Wilhelm v. Flores | 95 S.W.3d 96 (Tex. 2006) | 2006 WL 1566461 (Tex.), 49 Tex. Sup. Ct. J. 709 |
In this Texas case, a deceased worker's estate and his four adult children brought a negligence action against the beekeeper and others, after the worker died from anaphylactic shock caused by bee stings. On petition for review, the Supreme Court held that beekeeper did not owe worker, a commercial buyer's employee, any duty to warn him of dangers associated with bee stings or to protect worker from being stung. |
Case |
| Schmidt, d/b/a Top of the Ozark Auction | 65 Agric. Dec. 60 (U.S.D.A. Feb. 10, 2006) | The Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS), United States Department of Agriculture instituted a disciplinary proceeding alleging that Jerome Schmidt, a veterinarian, willfully violated the regulations and standards promulgated under the Animal Welfare Act. The alleged violations were based upon ten inspections conducted by a USDA inspector of Schmidt’s Top of the Ozark Auction facility where he conducted dog auctions. The 36 alleged violations centered on housing standards, structural soundness, soundness and security of the enclosures, house keeping and sanitation, trash on the premises, sufficiency of the lighting, the adequacy of the Schmidt’s insect and rodent control program, and interference and refusal of access to a USDA inspector. The Court found that the frequent inspections of Schmidt’s auction facility were inconsistent with and not based upon an objective risk-based assessment. None of the inspections, with the potential exception of one, conformed to the requirements of established Agency guidelines or policy. The inspector’s findings were exaggerated, biased, and unsupported by sufficient credible objective evidence of non-compliance. The egregious behavior of the inspector tainted the inspection results and, therefore, were precluded from being used for the purposes of an enforcement action. The Court ultimately dismissed the complaint against Schmidt and directed the Administrator of APHIS to take appropriate action to insure that the published polices and procedures of the Department are followed by APHIS personnel in future inspections. | Case |