Results
Displaying 201 - 210 of 6637
| Title | Citation | Alternate Citation | Summary | Type |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| CA - Parks - § 5008.1. Animals brought into parks; conditions; maintenance of Internet Web site | West's Ann. Cal. Pub. Res. Code § 5008.1 | This law allows the state parks director to determine when it is in the public interest to allow visitors to bring animals to units of the state park system. Animals brought in by visitors must be under immediate control of the visitor and must not pose a safety threat, create a public nuisance, or pose of threat to natural or cultural resources. The department may require a person bringing an animal into a state park system to provide proof of appropriate immunizations and valid licenses. In 2018, the legislature added a part to the law that states no later than July 1, 2020, the department shall establish and maintain on its Internet Web site a comprehensive, up-to-date list of each state park system unit with information on whether the unit or a portion of the unit allows dogs and additional information that may include, but is not limited to, the specific areas of the unit in which dogs are allowed and the total miles of trail in the unit that are open to dogs. | Statute | |
| James v. RSPCA | EWHC 1642 | Defendant was charged with unnecessary suffering towards three horses found in terrible conditions. It was held that where a protected animal is found in distress, a veterinarian's certificate need not be in writing for a constable or inspector to exercise powers under Section 18 of the Animal Welfare Act 2006 (namely seizure and detention). Oral certification of suffering will suffice in certain circumstances, for example where the protected animal requires urgent treatment and there is not sufficient time to produce a written certificate. | Case | |
| US - Chimpanzees - § 283m. Sanctuary system for surplus chimpanzees (CHIMP Act) | 42 U.S.C.A. § 283m | This Act provides a system of sanctuaries to provide for the lifetime care of chimpanzees not needed for research that have been used, or were bred or purchased for use, in research conducted or supported by the National Institutes of Health, the Food and Drug Administration, or other agencies of the Federal Government. The Act lists, among other things, requirements for the sanctuaries, criteria for "acceptable" chimpanzees, restrictions on further research of these chimpanzees, and establishment of contracts to entities providing care in the system. | Statute | |
| AR - Hunting - Chapter 71. Riots, Disorderly Conduct, | A.C.A. § 5-71-228 | AR ST § 5-71-228 | This law comprises Arkansas' hunter harassment law. Under the law, it is unlawful for any person to willfully obstruct or impede the participation of any individual in the lawful activity of shooting, hunting, fishing, or trapping in this state. The section also allows a person to obtain an injunction based on a showing that the hunting/fishing/trapping conduct is threatened or that the obstructive conduct has occurred in the past and it is not unreasonable to expect it to be repeated. Further, a person adversely affected by the obstructive conduct may be awarded damages, including punitive damages. If a person violates this section and is in possession of a firearm, the person is guilty of a Class A misdemeanor; otherwise, violation is a Class B misdemeanor. | Statute |
| National Wildlife Federation v. Norton | 386 F.Supp.2d 553 (D. Vt. 2005) | 61 ERC 1822 (2005) |
Conservation groups brought action against Final Rule promulgated by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to reclassify the gray wolf from endangered to threatened in most of the United States. The Rule created Eastern and Western Distinct Population segment and simultaneously downlisted them from endangered to threatened under the Endangered Species Act [ESA]. The Final Rule deviated significantly from the Proposed Rule and thus failed to provide adequate notice and opportunity for comment to the public, and the court also found the Final Rule an arbitrary and capricious application of the ESA. |
Case |
| McNeely v. U.S. | 874 A.2d 371 (D.C. App. 2005) | Defendant McNeely was convicted in a jury trial in the Superior Court of violating the Pit Bull and Rottweiler Dangerous Dog Designation Emergency Amendment Act. On appeal, t he Court of Appeals, held that the Act did not deprive defendant of fair warning of the proscribed conduct, as the defendant here was required to know that he owned pit bulls in order to be convicted under the Act; and the prosecutor's improper comment was rendered harmless by the trial court's curative instructions. | Case | |
| Wallen v. City of Mobile | --- So.3d ----, 2018 WL 3803749 (Ala. Crim. App. Aug. 10, 2018) | Wallen appeals her convictions for six counts of violating Mobile, Alabama's public nuisance ordinances. The nuisance convictions stem from an anonymous complaint about multiple barking dogs at Wallen's property. After receiving the tip in March of 2016, an animal control officer drove to the residence, parked across the street, and, as he sat in his car, heard dogs bark continuously for approximately ten minutes. That same day, a local realtor went to house that was for sale behind Wallen's property and heard an "overwhelming" noise of dogs barking continuously for 30-45 minutes. For almost a year, officers received complaints about noise coming from Wallen's house. In May of 2017, Wallen entered a plea of not guilty for multiple charges of violating the public nuisance ordinance in Mobile Circuit Court. She also filed a motion to dismiss, arguing that the Mobile City Code was unconstitutionally vague. Her motion was later denied, and a jury trial was held where Wallen was found guilty of six counts of violating Mobile's public-nuisance ordinance. On appeal, Wallen first argues that the public nuisance ordinance is unconstitutionally overbroad because it regulates without reference to time, place, and manner. However, the court found that Wallen did not establish how the overbreadth doctrine applied to her case and how the ordinance was unconstitutional. As to her next vagueness challenge, Wallen contended that the ordinance had no objective standards to determine whether a dog's barking is disturbing or unreasonable. This court disagreed, finding the statute defines what are "disturbing noises" (which specifically states barking), and other courts previously established that the term "habit" in a dog-barking statute is not vague. Finally, the found that Wallen's last general argument, that the code is unconstitutional as applied to her, did not satisfy court rules with respect to issues presented and support with authority on appeal. The judgment of the lower court was affirmed. | Case | |
| In re Marriage of Piskalns | Unpublished Disposition, 344 Mont. 555, 186 P.3d 877 (Table) (2008) | 2008 WL 2441361 | The parties both appealed from the district court’s orders distributing the marital estate upon the parties’ divorce. Kara Pilskalns claimed that the court erred when it granted ownership of Maggie, the couple’s dog, to Andrew Pilskalns. This court affirms the decision, declining to use the best interest of the child standard for the distribution of pets as they are marital property. | Case |
| CO - Trusts for Pets - Article 11. Intestate Succession and Wills. | C. R. S. A. § 15-11-901 | CO ST § 15-11-901 |
This Colorado statute provides that trust for the care of designated domestic or pet animals and the animals' offspring in gestation is valid. The determination of the "animals' offspring in gestation" is made at the time the designated domestic or pet animals become present beneficiaries of the trust. Unless the trust instrument provides for an earlier termination, the trust terminates when no living animal is covered by the trust (but no longer than 21 years). The trust property then transfers as provided by statute, but the trustee may not covert the trust property. |
Statute |
| KR - Cruelty - Animal Protection Act | Animal Protection Act (2004) |
Article 1 of this Act states that, "The purpose of this Act is to contribute to the cultivation of aesthetic sentiments, such as the respect for life, etc., through protecting the life and safety of animals by prescribing matters necessary for proper pro- tection and administration of animals such as the prevention of cruelty to animals, etc." |
Statute |