Results

Displaying 11 - 20 of 6018
Title Citation Alternate Citation Summary Type
PA - Cruelty - § 5536. Tethering of unattended dog 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 5536 This statute describes specific circumstances under which the tethering of an unattended dog outdoors may create a rebuttable presumption that the dog has been neglected. A dog tethered for less than nine hours in a 24-hour period with potable water, an area of shade, a tether at least three times the length of the dog with a swivel anchor and a well-fitted collar is not presumed to be neglect, unless tethered for more than a half hour in temperatures above 90 degrees or below 32 degrees. The statute is effective as of August 2017. 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
Silver v. State 23 A.3d 867 (Md. App., 2011) 2011 WL 2437286 (Md. App., 2011); 420 Md. 415 (2011)

Defendants were sentenced by the District Court after pleading guilty to one count of animal cruelty. After defendants were convicted in the Circuit Court, they petitioned for a writ of certiorari. The Court of Appeals held that the Circuit Court could order that defendants pay restitution for the euthanasia cost for the deceased horse, but it was beyond the court’s authority to order defendants pay restitution for costs of caring for the two surviving horses because defendants had not been convicted in those cases. The court also held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in refusing to strike officer's testimony for prosecutor's failure to provide the officer's written report prior to trial. Finally, photos and testimony regarding the surviving horses were “crime scene” evidence and not inadmissible “other crimes” evidence because the neglect of the surviving horses was part of the same criminal episode.

Case
MI - Impound - Chapter 287. Animal Industry. Use of Dogs and Cats for Research. MCL 287.388 MI ST 287.388

This Michigan statute provides that a dealer, a county, city, village, or township operating a dog pound or animal shelter shall not sell or otherwise dispose of a dog or cat within 4 days after its acquisition. If the dog or cat has a collar, license, or other evidence of ownership, the operator of the pound or shelter shall notify the owner in writing and disposition of the animal shall not be made within 7 days from the date of mailing the notice.

Statute
Williams v. McMahan 2002 WL 242538 (Wa. 2002) 110 Wash.App. 1031 (2002)

The plaintiff sued for damages as a result of the wrongful spaying of her purebred dog, which she intended to breed. The court found that damages should be measured by the fair market value of the dog.

Case
US - Whales - Whaling Convention Act 16 U.S.C.A. § 916 - 916l

These federal statutes describe the Whaling Convention Act which granted authority to the Secretary of State and the Secretary of Commerce for regulation. The Act makes it unlawful for any person in the United States to engage in whaling, transporting, or selling any whale or whale products, that are taken or processed in violation of the Act. The Act also prohibits other unlawful conduct such as whaling without a license and failing to keep required returns, records, and reports.  Finally, the Act provide penalties for violations including a fine of not more than $10,000, imprisonment of not more than one year, or both. In addition the court may prohibit such person from whaling for a period of time.

Statute
Sacco v. Tate 175 Misc.2d 901 (N.Y. 1998) 175 Misc.2d 901, 672 N.Y.S.2d 618, 1998 N.Y. Slip Op. 98231

Plaintiffs commenced the instant action to recover veterinary expenses incurred by reason of the fact that the dog sold to them by defendant was not healthy. The court held that plaintiffs were not entitled to avail themselves of the remedies afforded by article 35-D of the General Business Law by reason of their failure to comply with the requirements set forth in section 753 thereof (to wit, they did not produce the dog for examination by a licensed veterinarian designated by the dealer, nor did they furnish the dealer with a certification of unfitness of the dog within three days after their receipt thereof). The court, however, noted that the article does not limit the rights or remedies which are otherwise available to a consumer under any other law, so the award by the court was affirmed (albeit on a different basis).

Case
NH - Exotic Pets, Wildlife - Chapter 207. Import, Possession, or Release of Wildlife. N.H. Rev. Stat. § 207:14 - 207:15-a NH ST § 207:14 - 207:15-a

This New Hampshire section states that no person shall import, possess, sell, exhibit, or release any live marine species or wildlife, or the eggs or progeny thereof, without first obtaining a permit from the executive director except as otherwise permitted. The executive director has the authority to determine the time period and any other conditions governing the issuance of such permit. The executive director may refuse to issue a permit if he determines that such issuance may pose significant disease, genetic, ecological, environmental, health, safety, or welfare risks to persons, marine species or wildlife. Any wildlife release or imported contrary to these provisions are subject to seizure.

Statute
MA - Possession - Chapter 131. Inland Fisheries and Game and Other Natural Resources. M.G.L.A. 131 § 75A MA ST 131 § 75A

Massachusetts specifically protects the eagle as a bird of prey from hunting or possession, unless provided by permit. The law further prohibits the possession, harassment or harming of the eggs and nests of birds of prey. Notably, sale and transportation are not specifically listed under the statute. .

Statute
Rowbotham v. Maher 658 A.2d 912 (R.I. 1995)

The plaintiff argues that G.L. 1956 (1987 Reenactment) § 4-13-16 permits recovery for indirect injuries, specifically including emotional trauma resulting from the destruction of property, in this instance the destruction of plaintiff's dog by two other dogs.  The court disagrees, finding that under § 4-13-16, a person may recover damages in a civil action from a dog owner where the dog causes an injury to a person or to another domestic animal, and nothing in the statute permits recovery for emotional trauma.  With regard to the negligent infliction of emotional distress claim, the court notes that in this jurisdiction a third party may recover if, inter alia, the party is a close relative of the victim, which was not the case here. 

Case

Pages