Results
| Title | Citation | Alternate Citation | Summary | Type |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| TN - Hunting, Internet - Part 5. Computer-Assisted Hunting from Remote Locations | T. C. A. § 70-4-501 - 504 | TN ST § 70-4-501 - 504 | This set of Tennessee laws prohibits computer-assisted remote hunting or providing or operating facilities for computer-assisted remote hunting if the wildlife being hunted is located in this state. Computer-assisted remote hunting is defined as "the use of a computer or any other device, equipment or software, to control remotely the aiming and discharge of a rifle, shotgun, handgun, bow and arrow, cross-bow or any other implement to hunt wildlife." | Statute |
| Connecticut General Statutes 1902: Sections 2807-2816 | Conn. Gen. Stat. §§ 2807 - 2816 (1902) | The 1902 General Statutes of Connecticut sections 2807-2816 cover the following topics: definition of an animal, powers of an agent from humane society, and funding of the humane society. | Statute | |
| City of Pierre v. Blackwell | 635 N.W.2d 581 (S.D. 2001) | 2001 SD 127 |
In this South Dakota case, the owner of a dog declared by an animal control officer to be "dangerous" pursuant to Pierre City Ordinance § 10-3-111 challenged the conviction on the basis that the ordinances themselves were unconstitutional and that his constitutional right to procedural due process has been violated. The court held that the ordinances themselves were constitutional, noting the broad authority municipalities have to regulate pet ownership as a legitimate exercise of police power. The court reversed and remanded for determination on the factual issue of the dog's dangerousness. Specifically, if the City opts for a civil hearing, absent exigent circumstances, the owner of a dog is entitled to a due process hearing on the issue of dangerousness. |
Case |
| Lee v. State | 973 N.E.2d 1207 (Ind.App. 2012) | 2012 WL 3775862 (Ind.App. 2012) |
An attendant of a dog fight was convicted of a Class A misdemeanor under section 35-46-3-4 of the Indiana Code. On appeal, the defendant-appellant argued that the statute was unconstitutionally vague and that the statute invited arbitrary law enforcement, which violated the Due Process clause of the U.S. Constitution. Though the appeals court found the defendant-appellant had waived her constitutional claims by not filing a motion at the bench trial, the appeals court found her claims lacked merit. The defendant-appellant’s conviction was therefore upheld. |
Case |
| Hastings v. Sauve | 94 A.D.3d 1171 (N.Y.A.D. 3 Dept., 2012) | 2012 WL 1129275 (N.Y.A.D. 3 Dept., 2012); 941 N.Y.S.2d 774 (2012) | Plaintiff motorist was injured after hitting a cow that had wandered onto the highway, and sued owner for negligently failing to confine cow. The Supreme Court held that injury claims could only proceed under strict liability theory based on owner's knowledge of animal's vicious propensities. There was no evidence that cow had a vicious propensity, or that owner knew of propensity, thus, owner was not liable. This order was Reversed by Hastings v. Sauve , 2013 WL 1829834 (N.Y., 2013). | Case |
| OK - Confinement - § 5-602. Confinement of wildlife to premises | 29 Okl. St. Ann. § 5-602 | OK ST T. 29 § 5-602 | This Oklahoma statute provides that all furbearers, game mammals, game birds, game fish, and minnows are to be confined to the lands or waters described in the application. | Statute |
| Student Choice Laws (Dissection in Classroom Laws) | This map illustrates the eleven (11) states with "student choice" laws. The District of Columbia also has a provision, which can be found here. These laws give K-12 students the ability to opt-out of classroom activities involving animal dissection or animal harm. While the laws differ from state to state, they generally allow students to refuse to participate in instructional exercises (both observation and participation) that involve harm or destruction to dead animals (and most laws also prohibit vivisection on higher vertebrate animals). Students who decline to participate must usually be offered alternative education projects and are protected from any discrimination based on their refusal to participate in animal dissection or harm. Those states that do not have laws on student choice may have formalized education policies that allow students to opt-out of classroom dissection activities. For more on these polices, see the National Anti-Vivisection Society (NAVS). The majority of states do not have laws or formal policies allowing students or their parents to refuse animal dissection. | State map | ||
| WA - Shark - 77.15.770. Unlawful trade in shark fins--Penalty | RCWA 77.15.770 | WA ST 77.15.770 | Under this Washington statute, it is unlawful to trade in shark fins, with exceptions. A person is guilty in the second degree (gross misdemeanor) if s/he sells, purchases, or processes a shark fin for commercial purposes. A person is guilty of unlawful trade in shark fins in the first degree (class C felony) if the act involves shark fins with a total market value of $250 or more, or acted with knowledge that the shark fin originated from a shark that was illegally caught. | Statute |
| PA - Ordinances - § 459-1201. Applicability to cities of the first class, second class, second class A and third class | 3 P.S. § 459-1201 | PA ST 3 P.S. § 459-1201 | This Pennsylvania statute provides that cities of the first and second class are not affected by state dog licensing programs; existing city-level programs remain in effect. With cities of the third class, certain provisions of the state article on dog licensing shall not apply if the city has established a licensing program by ordinance. | Statute |
| Friedman v. Souther California Permanente Medical Group |
Amicus Curae brief arguing for veganism to be viewed as a religion in wrongful termination case. |
Pleading |