Results
Displaying 6631 - 6637 of 6637
| Title | Citation | Alternate Citation | Summary | Type |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| IA - Fur, traps - Chapter 481A. Wildlife Conservation. | I. C. A. § 481A.92 | IA ST § 481A.92 | A person cannot use colony traps for fur-bearing animals except for muskrats. Traps must be labeled with the user's name and address, and must be checked at least once every twenty-four hours, unless completely submerged under water. A person cannot use instruments such as chemicals or explosives to remove fur-bearing animals from their dens. | Statute |
| CA - Docking - § 597n. Docked horses; prohibition of docking; importation or use of unregistered animals | West's Ann. Cal. Penal Code § 597n | CA PENAL § 597n | This law was amended in 2009 to prohibit the docking or cutting of the solid part of any horse or cattle. Violation of the law constitutes a misdemeanor. The new law does provide an exclusion for the docking of any cattle's tail in an emergency for the purpose of saving the cattle's life or relieving the cattle's pain provided that the emergency treatment is performed consistent with the Veterinary Medicine Practice Act. | Statute |
| Ward v. Hartley | 895 A.2d 1111 (Md.App., 2006) | 2006 WL 902553 (Md.App.), 168 Md.App. 209 |
In this Maryland case, a dog bite victim filed a negligence and strict liability action against the dog owners and their landlords. In plaintiff's appeal of the trial court's granting of defendant's motion for summary judgment, the appellate court held that the landlords had no control over the premises where the "dangerous or defective condition" existed and thus had no duty to inspect. The court found that first, no statute, principle of common law, or provision in the lease imposed upon the landlord the duty to inspect the leased premises to see if a vicious animal was being kept. Second, there was no evidence presented that, at the time the lease was signed by the landlord, he knew, or would have had any way of knowing, that a vicious animal was to be kept on the premises. |
Case |
| In re: JAMES E. STEPHENS AND WATER WHEEL EXOTICS, INC. | 58 Agric. Dec. 149 (1999) | 1999 WL 288586 (U.S.D.A.) | Ongoing pattern of violations establishes "history of previous violations" for purposes of 7 USCS § 2149(b). | Case |
| Ecuador - Stray animals - Ley 67, 2006 | Ley 67, 2006, Ecuador | The excerpt from the organic law for health corresponds to the treatment of companion and stray animals. Article 123 establishes that domestic animal owners must vaccinate their animals against rabies and other diseases the health authority considers a risk to human health. Owners are also responsible for keeping their animals in conditions that do not risk human health and environmental hygiene. Under the same article, municipalities, in coordination with the health authority, control and handle stray animals. | Statute | |
| People v. Johnson | 889 N.W.2d 513 (2016), appeal denied, 500 Mich. 951, 891 N.W.2d 231 (2017) | 315 Mich. App. 163, 2016 WL 1576933 (Mich. App. Apr. 19, 2016) | This case involves challenges to the courtroom procedure of allowing a witness to be accompanied on the witness stand by a support animal. Defendant Johnson appealed his convictions of criminal sexual assault after he was convicted of assaulting his six-year-old niece. During Defendant's trial, a black Labrador retriever was permitted, to accompany the six-year-old victim to the witness stand. On appeal, the Defendant first argued that his trial counsel was ineffective for failing to object to the use of a support animal because MCL 600.2163a(4) only allows a support person. The Court of Appeals of Michigan stated that the trial court had the inherent authority to utilize support animals. Secondly, the Defendant argued that trial counsel should have objected to the notice of a support person on the basis that allowing the witnesses to testify accompanied by the support animal violated his constitutional right to due process. The Court of Appeals stated that there is no indication that the support dog used was visible to the jury, or that he barked, growled, or otherwise interrupted the proceedings. Therefore, the objection was meritless. Next, the Defendant argued that his counsel was ineffective for failing to request various procedural protections if the support animal was used. The Court of Appeals stated that the use of a support dog did not implicate the Confrontation Clause; the presence of the dog did not affect the witnesses' competency to testify or affect the oath given to the witnesses; the witnesses were still subject to cross-examination; and the trier of fact was still afforded the unfettered opportunity to observe the witnesses' demeanor. Finally, the Defendant argued that a limiting instruction should have been provided to the jury when the support animal was utilized and this rendered his counsel ineffective. The Court of Appeals stated, that there are no Michigan jury instructions addressing the use of a support animal. Counsel was then not ineffective in failing to ask for an instruction that does not yet exist in Michigan. The Court of Appeals affirmed the defendant's convictions and sentence and remanded. | Case |
| US - AWA - 2014 Public Law113-79 | 2014 PL 113-79 | The 2014 amendments to the Animal Welfare Act allows the Secretary of agriculture to define de minimis, as well as several grammatical changes. The public law also provides the prohibits anyone from allowing a person who has not attained the age of 16 from attending an animal fighting venture. | Statute |