Results

Displaying 41 - 50 of 6021
Title Citation Alternate Citation Summary Type
NH - Cruelty - Consolidated Cruelty Laws N.H. Rev. Stat. § 644:8 - 644:8-g; N.H. Rev. Stat. § 105:14 - 18 NH ST § 644:8 - 644:8-g; NH ST § 105:14 - 18

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
LA - Exotic animals - § 2796.2. Limitation of liability for loss connected LSA-R.S. 9:2796.2

This Louisiana law states that no person shall have a cause of action against any nonprofit organization which operates or maintains a tax-exempt animal sanctuary for any injury, death, loss, or damage in connection with the Chimp Haven Festival, Dixie Chimps art contest, Les Boutiques de Noel, SciPort and Chimp Haven events, Run Wild and Have a Field Day, Eye-20 Art Show Gala, Krewe of Barkus and Meow Paws parade, Krewe of Centaur parade, Krewe of Highland parade, garden tour, ChimpStock, and any other educational and public awareness activities in which the organization sponsors or participates, unless the loss or damage was caused by the deliberate and wanton act or gross negligence of the organization or any officer, employee, or volunteer thereof.

Statute
Dutka v. Cassady 2012 WL 3641635 (Not Reported in A.3d) 2012 Conn. Super. LEXIS 1901 A rescue organization had adopted out a dog. The new owners were walking the dog unleashed when it attacked another dog. The plaintiff's filed a complaint of common law negligence and recklessness, which alleged that the rescue organization should have known and should have warned them of the dangerous tendencies of the specific dog but failed to do so. Connecticut law imposed strict liability on an owner or keeper of such an animal, and the statute had not been expanded to include the seller or transferor. The issue then was whether the court should expand the scope of such a negligence claim and create a duty of care owed by transferors or sellers of dogs with known and/or unknown propensities for aggression. The court found that there was no support for expanding liability in common law negligence when the organization in this case did not own, possess, harbor or control the dog. The court declines to impose a duty on the rescue agency to inform adoptive families. Case
Farm Sanctuary, Inc. v. Department of Food & Agriculture 74 Cal.Rptr.2d 75 (Cal.App. 2 Dist.,1998.)

Environmental group brought suit challenging regulation allowing ritual slaughter exception to statute requiring that animals be treated humanely. The Superior Courtupheld regulation and appeal was taken. The Court of Appeal, Masterson, J., held that: (1) group had standing to sue, and (2) regulation was valid.

Case
NJ - Horse - 39:4-15. Sleigh bells on horses attached to a sleigh N.J.S.A. 39:4-15 This New Jersey law states that no person shall drive a horse attached to a sleigh or sled on a highway unless there are a sufficient number of bells attached to the horse's harness to give warning of its approach. Statute
U.S. v. Zak 486 F.Supp.2d 208 (D.Mass., 2007) 2007 WL 1427442 (D.Mass.)

Defendant pleaded guilty to three counts under the MBTA after agents determined that he killed 250 great blue herons; he then went to trial on the remaining counts under the MBTA and BGEPA related to his killing of a juvenile bald eagle on his commercial fish growing operation. On appeal, defendant contended that he cannot be found guilty under the MBTA unless the government proved beyond a reasonable doubt that he knew the bird he was shooting was protected and intentionally shot it with that knowledge (defendant stated that he shot a "big brown hawk'). The court disagreed, finding the overwhelming authority requires no such specific scienter on the part of the actor. With regard to defendant's contention that the government failed to prove the "knowingly" prong of the BGEPA, the court was equally unpersuaded. The evidence demonstrated beyond a reasonable doubt that defendant knowingly shot the eagle as it sat perched on the dead pine tree on the edge of his property, regardless of whether he knew the juvenile bird was an eagle or, as he said, “a big brown hawk.”

Case
US - Food Animal - Twenty Eight Hour Law 49 USC 80502

This Federal law addresses the transportation of animals, including those raised for food or in food production, across state lines. The statute provides that animals cannot be transported by "rail carrier, express carrier or common carrier" (except by air or water) for more than 28 consecutive hours without being unloaded for five hours for rest, water and food.

Statute
MN - Fish & Game - Chapter 97A. Game and Fish. Penalties M. S. A. § 97A.301 - 345 MN ST § 97A.301 - 345

These Minnesota statutes pertain to criminal sanctions for violations of fish and game laws. A person is guilty of a misdemeanor if s/he takes, buys, sells, transports or possesses a wild animal in violation of the laws. A person is guilty of a gross misdemeanor if s/he knowingly disregards no trespassing signs or trespasses after being notified not to trespass. It is also a gross misdemeanor to violate provisions relating to buying or selling fur-bearers, deer, bear, moose, elk, or caribou, fishing with illegal methods, and transporting animals over the limit.  A gross misdemeanor may be punished by a fine and/or imprisonment.

Statute
Myanmar - Animal Welfare - Animal Health and Development Law The State Law and Order Restoration Council Law No. 13/93 This Myanmar Law, in English and Burmese, provides for livestock breeding, welfare, animal feed standards, the prevention and control of contagious diseases, inspections, trade, certificates and related fees, and the prevention of cruelty to animals. Statute
GOODWIN v. E. B. NELSON GROCERY CO. 132 N.E. 51 (Mass. 1921) 239 Mass. 232 (1921)

Plaintiff brought her dog into a store. The dog fought with the store owner's cat. After the fight was over, and the animals were calm, plaintiff reached down and grabbed the cat's front paw. The cat scratched and bit plaintiff, who brought a negligence action against the store owner. The court held that plaintiff could not recover because plaintiff did not exercise due care when she interfered with a strange animal, and there was no evidence that the cat was vicious.

Case

Pages