Results
Displaying 6561 - 6570 of 6649
| Title | Citation | Alternate Citation | Summary | Type |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| NE - Cruelty - Article 9. Livestock Animal Welfare Act | Neb. Rev. St. § 54-901 - 913 | NE ST § 54-901 to 54-912 | In 2010, Nebraska enacted the Livestock Animal Welfare Act. The act makes the intentional abandonment, neglect, or cruel mistreatment of livestock (bovine, equine, swine, sheep, goats, domesticated cervine animals, ratite birds, or poultry) a Class I misdemeanor (Class IV felony for subsequent offenses). Further, the act criminalizes "indecency with a livestock animal," which is a Class III misdemeanor. A person who is convicted of a Class IV felony under 54-903 (the abandonment/cruel neglect or mistreatment provision) shall also be ordered by the sentencing court not to possess a livestock animal for at least 5 years after the date of conviction. | Statute |
| LA - Endangered Species - THREATENED AND ENDANGERED SPECIES CONSERVATION | LSA-R.S. 56:1901 - 07 | These Louisiana statutes set forth the legislative policy, definitions, and factors for listing endangered species. Additionally, the commission is authorized to issue and promote the sale to the general public of "endangered species" stamps as an additional source of funding for implementation of programs under these statutes. Violation of these provisions may result in a class four or class six violation. | Statute | |
| Strickland v. Davis | 221 Ala 247 (1930) |
A case involving an automobile accident in which the court declared that photographs may be authenticated by a party having personal knowledge of the location and who can verify that the photos substantially represent the conditions as they existed at the time in question. |
Case | |
| Argentina - Endangered species - Ley 25.463, 2001 | Ley 25.463 | This law declared the Panthera onca, also known as yaguareté, Jaguar, overo tiger or painted onca, a natural monument. Ley 25.463/01 instructs the National Park Administration and the Directorate of Wildlife and Flora of the Nation to work together on the management plan for the species in the areas of its jurisdiction, making sure it is in accordance to the national faunal policy. The Enforcement Authority will guarantee the planning and execution of preventive measures in cases in which a specimen becomes circumstantially harmful to humans or their productive activities. | Statute | |
| MN - Ordinances - Chapter 365. Town General Law. Town Meeting Powers. | M. S. A. § 365.10 | MN ST § 365.10 | Under this Minnesota statute, town electors at their annual town meeting, are empowered to exercise control over a number of activities relating to dogs. They can decide the locations of pounds, set the number of poundmasters, and discontinue a pound. The electors may make orders and bylaws on restraining horses, cattle, sheep, swine, and other domestic animals from going at large on roads. They may also make orders and bylaws on the impounding of domestic animals going at large and fix penalties for violations of the orders and bylaws. The electors may let the town board pass an ordinance for licensing dogs and cats and regulating their presence, keeping, and running at large in the town. The electors are also granted the authority to provide for a specific activity that is within any of the following categories: the promotion of health, safety, order, and convenience, and the general welfare. | Statute |
| Thompson v. Dover Downs, Inc. | 887 A.2d 458 (Del.Supr.,2005) | 31 NDLR P 135 (Del.Supr.,2005) |
Vernon Thompson appeals from a Superior Court order reversing a decision and order of the Delaware Human Relations Commission (DHRC) after Thompson was denied access to defendant's casino because Thompson insisted that his dog accompany him, but refused to answer the officials' inquiries about what his alleged support animal had been trained to perform. The DHRC determined that by denying access, Dover Downs had unlawfully discriminated against Thompson in violation of the Delaware Equal Accommodations Law. The Supreme Court here agreed with the Superior Court in reversing the DHRC. It found that Dover Downs' personnel were entitled to ask Thompson about his dog's training. Since Thompson refused to answer these questions, there is no rational basis to conclude that Dover Downs' refusal to admit Thompson accompanied was pretextual. |
Case |
| IA - Trusts for Pets - Chapter 633A. Iowa Trust Code. | I. C. A. § 633A.2101 - 2105 | IA ST § 633A.2101 - 2105 | This Iowa statute allows for the creation of a trust for the continuing care of animal living at the settlor's death (note that actual text does not state "domestic" or "pet" animal). This type of trust, allowed generally through the provisions for lawful noncharitable trusts, is valid for up to twenty-one years, whether or not the terms of the trust contemplates a longer duration. The trust terminates when when no living animal is covered by its terms. | Statute |
| United States v. Wallen | 874 F.3d 620 (9th Cir. 2017) | 85 ERC 1461, 17 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 10,343, 2017 Daily Journal D.A.R. 10,241 (9th Cir. 2017) | Defendant appeals his conviction for unlawfully killing three grizzly bears in violation of the federal Endangered Species Act (ESA). The killing of the bears occurred on May 27, 2014 at defendant's residence in Ferndale, Montana ("bear country" as the court described). In the morning, defendant discovered bears had killed over half of his chickens maintained in a coop. Later that evening, the bears returned, heading toward the coop. Defendant's children, who were playing outside at the time, headed inside and defendant proceeded to scare the bears away with his truck. Later that night, the bears returned and were shot by defendant. According to testimony by enforcement officers, defendant gave two different accounts of what happened that night. Ultimately, defendant was charged for killing the bears in violation of the ESA and convicted by a magistrate judge after raising an unsuccessful self-defense argument. On appeal, defendant argued: (1) he should have been tried by a jury; (2) the magistrate judge did not correctly identify the elements of his offense, and that error was not harmless; and (3) the case should be remanded for a trial by jury in the interest of justice. With regard to (1), that he was entitled to a jury trial because the offense was serious, rather than petty, the appellate court rejected the argument. The possibility of a five-year probation term and $15,000 restitution did not transform the crime, which had a maximum 6-month imprisonment, into a serious offense. On the second and third arguments, the court agreed that magistrate erroneously relied on a self-defense provision from a federal assault case that required the "good faith belief" to be objectively reasonable. The court held that the "good faith" requirement for § 1540(b)(3) should be based on a defendant's subjective state of mind. Then, the ultimate question becomes whether that subjective good faith belief was reasonably held in good faith. Said the Court, "[u]nder the Endangered Species Act, the reasonableness of a belief that an endangered animal posed a threat is likewise strong evidence of whether the defendant actually held that belief in good faith." As a result, the appellate court found the error by the magistrate in rejecting defendant's self-defense claim was not harmless. As to whether defendant is entitled to a jury trial on remand, the court found that the outcome of the prior proceedings conducted by a magistrate do not constitute a showing of bias or partiality. Thus, he is not entitled to trial by jury. The conviction was vacated and proceedings remanded. | Case |
| MA - Dog - Consolidated Dog Laws | M.G.L.A. 2 § 14; M.G.L.A. 112 § 12Z; M.G.L.A. 128A § 14E; M.G.L.A. 266 § 47; M.G.L.A. 140 § 136A - § 174F; M.G.L.A. 129 § 39G; M.G.L.A. 131 § 20, 21, 21A, 82 | MA ST 2 § 14; MA ST 112 § 12Z; MA ST 128A § 14E; MA ST 266 § 47; MA ST 140 § 136A - § 174F; MA ST 129 § 39G; MA ST 131 § 20, 21, 21A, 82 | These Massachusetts statutes comprise the state's dog laws. Among the provisions include licensing laws, dangerous dog laws, and rabies vaccination provisions. | Statute |
| People v. McCree | 2002 WL 276134 (Cal. 2002) |
Defendant was convicted, after a jury trial, of eight counts of possession and training of a
fighting dog and two counts of causing a dogfight
for gain. Defendant appealed. The Court of Appeal, held that: (1) prosecutor's cross-examination of defense witness was proper; (2) prosecutor's closing arguments were proper; and (3) evidence supported the convictions.
|
Case |