Results
Displaying 6611 - 6620 of 6822
| Title | Citation | Alternate Citation | Summary | Type |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| State v. Acker | 160 Conn. App. 734 (2015) | 2015 WL 6142904 (Conn. App. Ct., 2015) | Defendant, the director of the Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals of Connecticut, Inc., was charged with 63 counts of animal cruelty for failing to give animals “proper care by exposing [them] to conditions that placed [them] at risk of hypothermia, dehydration, or to conditions injurious to [their] well-being....” Defendant was the director of a nonprofit animal rescue organization and housed rescued dogs in an uninsulated outdoor barn heated solely by space heaters. After a trial, Defendant was convicted of 15 counts and acquitted of the remaining 48 counts of animal cruelty. On appeal, the defendant claimed that (1) there was insufficient evidence to support the conviction and (2)C.G.S.A. § 53-247(a) was unconstitutionally vague as applied to the facts of this case. The appellate court rejected defendant’s claims and affirmed the trial court’s decision. | Case |
| MT - Equine Activity Liability - Chapter 1. Availability of Remedies--Liability. | MCA 27-1-725 to 27-1-728 | MT ST 27-1-725 to 27-1-728 | The Montana equine activity liability act provides that it is the policy of the state of Montana that a person is not liable for damages sustained by another solely as a result of risks inherent in equine activities if those risks are or should be reasonably obvious, expected, or necessary to persons engaged in equine activities. Liability is not limited by this statute where the equine professional knowingly provided faulty tack or equipment, failed to make reasonable and prudent efforts to determine the ability of the participant to engage safely in the equine activity, owns or otherwise is in lawful possession of the land or facilities upon which the participant sustained injuries because of a known, dangerous latent condition, or if he or she commits an act or omission that constitutes willful or wanton disregard for the safety of the participant or intentionally injures the participant. | Statute |
| IL - Horse Meat Act - Chapter 225. Professions and Occupations. | 225 ILCS 635/1 - 18 | IL ST CH 225 § 635/1 - 18 | This Act prohibits the slaughter of horses for human consumption as well as importing, exporting, selling, giving, or even possessing horse meat if a person knows or should know that it will be used for human consumption. Violation of this section of the Act is a Class C misdemeanor. The Act does contain several exceptions. Notably, it does not apply to any commonly accepted noncommercial, recreational, or sporting activities. | Statute |
| CA - Animal Control - Chapter 20.5. Animal Control Officer Standards Act. | West's Ann.Cal.Health & Safety Code § 26220 - 26230 | This comprises the Animal Control Officer Standards Act. The law requires the Board of Directors of the California Animal Welfare Association to develop and maintain standards for various classes of CACOs. The standards for education, training, and certification shall be adopted by administrative rule of the board, and shall not be less rigorous than those described in this chapter. The board shall maintain a registry of each application for a certificate of registration under this chapter. | Statute | |
| Viilo v. Eyre | 547 F.3d 707 (C.A.7 (Wis.),2008) | 2008 WL 4694917 |
Virginia Viilo sued the City of Milwaukee and two of its police officers under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 after an officer shot and killed her dog 'Bubba.' The district court denied the defendants' motion for summary judgment on the basis of qualified immunity and the defendants took an interlocutory appeal challenging this denial. The court found that defendants' interjection of factual disputes deprived the court of jurisdiction. The court further held that it is a violation of the Fourth Amendment for a police officer to shoot and kill a companion dog that poses no imminent danger while the dog’s owner is present and trying to assert custody over her pet. |
Case |
| Anderson v. Evans | 314 F.3d 1006 (9th Cir. 2002) | 55 ERC 1481, 2 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 12,197, 2002 Daily Journal D.A.R. 14,605 |
Concerned citizens and animal conservation groups brought an action against United States government, challenging the government's approval of quota for whale hunting by Makah Indian Tribe located in Washington state. On appeal by the plaintiffs, the Court of Appeals held that the failure of the government to prepare an Environmental Impact Statement before approving a whale quota for the Makah Tribe violated National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). The court also found that the Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA) applied to tribe's proposed whale hunt, as the proposed whale takings were not excluded by the treaty with the tribe. |
Case |
| OH - Domestic Violence - 3113.31 Petitions; protection orders concerning domestic violence | R.C. § 3113.31 | OH ST § 3113.31 | This Ohio law concerns protection orders in cases of domestic violence. In 2014, the law was amended to allow a court to grant a protection order that may: (E)(1)(i) require that the respondent not remove, damage, hide, harm, or dispose of any companion animal owned or possessed by the petitioner; and (j) authorize the petitioner to remove a companion animal owned by the petitioner from the possession of the respondent. “Companion animal” has the same meaning as in section 959.131 of the Revised Code, which is defined as any animal that is kept inside a residential dwelling and any dog or cat regardless of where it is kept. The term “companion animal” does not include livestock or any wild animal. | Statute |
| MI - Endangered - Part 365. Endangered Species Protection | M. C. L. A. 324.36501 - 07 | MI ST 324.36501 - 07 | The state of Michigan defines an endangered species as "any fish, plant life, or wildlife that is in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant part of its range, other than a species of insecta determined by the department or the Secretary of the United States Department of the Interior to constitute a pest whose protection under this part would present an overwhelming and overriding risk to humans." Violation of the taking provision constitutes a misdemeanor punishable up to 90-days in jail and/or up to $1,0000 in fines. | Statute |
| FL - Department of Agriculture & Consumer Services - Enforcement | West's F. S. A. 570.15; 570.051; § 570.65 | FL ST § 570.65, 570.15, 570.051 | This set of laws authorizes the establishment of the Office of Agricultural Law Enforcement within the Department of Agriculture & Consumer Services for the enforcement of laws relating to wild or domesticated animals or animal products. Law enforcement officers employed by the Department have statewide jurisdiction and have full law enforcement powers granted to other peace officers of the state, including the authority to make arrests, carry firearms, serve court process, and seize contraband and the proceeds of illegal activities. It is a misdemeanor of the second degree to threaten, interfere with, or impersonate an enforcement officer or other employee of the Department. | Statute |
| Friends of Animals v. United States Bureau of Land Management | 548 F. Supp. 3d 39 (D.D.C. 2021) | 2021 WL 2935900 (D.D.C. July 13, 2021) | This case involves a motion for a preliminary injunction by the group Friends of Animals to prevent the Bureau of Land Management from gathering and removing excess horses inside and adjacent to the Onaqui Mountain Herd Management Area (“Onaqui Mountain HMA”) to reduce the number of horses to the low end of the appropriate management level (“AML”). The BLM contends such an accelerated removal is necessary because of the historic drought that has gripped the American West. The court first examined the language and legislative history of the Wild Free-Roaming Horses and Burros Act (WHA), noting that the overarching goal of the act is provide balance between the horses and ecological impact on the lands. The WLA requires the Secretary to strike this balance by setting appropriate management levels and deciding on how to deal with excess animals. In addition, the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) is also implicated with decisions to gather horses which is done primarily through the Environmental Assessment (EA) process. The court denied the motion for preliminary injunction finding the advocacy organizations were unlikely to succeed on merits. | Case |