Results
| Title | Citation | Alternate Citation | Summary | Type |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| AL - Equine - Immunity of those involved in equine activities. | Ala. Code 1975 § 6-5-337 | AL ST § 6-5-337 | This Alabama statute embodies the legislature's recognition that persons who participate in equine activities may incur injuries as a result of the risks involved in those activities. This statute provides that for the immediate preservation of the public peace, health, and safety, and to encourage equine activities, civil liability of those involved in equine activities is limited by law. Liability is not limited when the equine sponsor intentionally injures a participant or engages in willful or wanton behavior that causes injury or death. | Statute |
| State v. Gerard | 832 N.W.2d 314 (Minn.App.,2013) | 2013 WL 3155477 (Minn.App.,2013) |
This case considers whether the trial court erred when it dismissed the felony count of unjustifiably killing an animal based on lack of probable cause. The incident stems from the killing of the neighbors' cat with a shotgun by defendant-respondent. At trial, he filed a motion to dismiss for lack of probable cause that was accompanied by a notarized affidavit of the responding police deputy stating the shooting of the cat was "justified." The trial court dismissed the complaint finding insufficient evidence that respondent had unjustifiably killed the cat. On appeal, the court found the district court's reliance on the deputy's lay opinion was improper. The court found it was within the jury's province to determine whether respondent's actions were justified or unjustified based on the evidence at trial. |
Case |
| Loy v. Kenney | 301 Cal. Rptr. 3d 352 (Cal.App. 2 Dist., 2022), reh'g denied (Dec. 2, 2022) | 85 Cal.App.5th 403 (Cal.App. 2 Dist., 2022) | This is a case brought by purchasers of puppies from breeders advertising on Craigslist, against the breeders who were selling fatally sick puppies to these buyers. The buyers allege that the sellers misrepresented the puppies as healthy, when the dogs were actually too young to be separated from their mothers and many of these puppies ended up dying from illnesses such as parvovirus. The buyers brought suit for violation of the Consumers Legal Remedies Act, and for animal cruelty. The trial court granted a preliminary injunction to stop the sellers from advertising and selling dogs while trial was pending. This appeal followed, with the sellers arguing that there was insufficient evidence to show that they were the sellers of these sick puppies. However, the court of appeals affirmed. The court found that the evidence from the humane officer’s search of the seller’s home led to sufficient evidence that they were selling the sick puppies, including the seizure of 32 puppies and dogs living in unhealthy and cruel conditions. The puppies were being separated from their mothers too soon, and some were encrusted with feces. During the search, one of the sellers also told the officer that they would not stop selling puppies. Sellers attempted to raise several evidentiary objections to the evidence offered by the humane society officers, but all were rejected. Accordingly, the judgment was affirmed and awarded costs to the buyers who brought the action. | Case |
| IN - Cattle Slaughter - THE KERALA PANCHAYAT RAJ (SLAUGHTER HOUSES AND MEAT STALLS) RULES, 1996 | 13 or 1994 | These Rules regulate the operation of slaughterhouses and meat stalls. Animals may be slaughtered only in public or licensed slaughter houses within a village panchayat area. Slaughter houses may not be established within 90 metres of any house. Butchers require licenses for slaughtering animals. Animals may not be admitted to slaughter houses unless they are examined and certified as being free from contagious diseases. | Statute | |
| Japan, Convention Between the Government of the United States of America and the Government of Japan for the Protection of Migratory Birds and Birds in Danger of Extinction, and Their Environment | TIAS 7990 | Per Digest of Federal Resource Laws of Interest to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service: This 1972 Convention is designed to provide for the protection of species of birds which are common to both countries, or which migrate between them by (1) enhancement of habitat, (2) exchange of research data, and (3) regulation of hunting. It was signed in Tokyo on March 4, 1974, with ratification advised by the Senate of March 27, 1973, and documents of ratification exchanged September 19, 1972. The Convention entered into force September 19, 1974. An agreement amending the annex to the Convention by adding the Maloy Bittern was effected by exchange of notes September 19, 1974, entering into force December 19, 1974 (25 UST 3373; TIAS 7990). This exchange also included a list of endangered birds as provided for in Article IV of the Convention. Implementing legislation for the United States was achieved by enactment of P.L. 93-300, June 1, 1975 (88 Stat. 190), amending the Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918 (16 USC 703-711; 40 Stat. 755), as amended. By a 1988 exchange of diplomatic notes, Convention appendices were updated to correct common names of species, scientific names, and to both add and delete species on the list based upon the latest scientific knowledge. | Treaty | |
| Bartlett v. State | 929 So.2d 1125, (Fla.App. 4 Dist.,2006) | 2006 WL 1409122 (Fla.App. 4 Dist.,2006), 31 Fla. L. Weekly D1449 |
In this Florida case, the court held that the evidence was sufficient to support a conviction for felony cruelty to animals after the defendant shot an opossum "countless" times with a BB gun after the animal had left defendant's home. As a result, the animal had to be euthanized. The court wrote separately to observe that the felony cruelty section (828.12) as written creates a potential tension between conduct criminalized by the statute and the lawful pursuit of hunting. The commission of an act that causes a "cruel death" in Section 828.12 applies to even the unintended consequence of a lawful act like hunting. |
Case |
| Ocean Advocates v. United States Army Corps of Engineers | 402 F.3d 846 (9th Cir., 2005) | 2005 WL 525269 (9th Cir.) |
An environmental group brought an action against the U.S. Army Corps Engineers and BP for violating both the National Environmental Policy Act and the Marine Mammal Protection Act. Defendants counter-claimed that the environmental group lacked standing and that the claim was barred by laches. The Court of Appeals affirmed the denial of defendants' motion for summary judgment, reversed summary judgment against the environmental group, and remanded the case for consideration of the environmental group's request for injunctive relief. |
Case |
| CA - Service Animal - § 600.5. Intentional injury to, or death of, guide, signal or service dog; penalty; restitution | West's Ann. Cal. Penal Code § 600.5 | CA PENAL § 600.5 | Any person who intentionally causes injury to or the death of any service dog, while the dog is in discharge of its duties, is guilty of a misdemeanor. punishable by a fine and/or imprisonment. Upon conviction, a defendant must make restitution to the person with a disability who has custody or ownership of the dog for any veterinary bills and replacement costs of the dog if it is disabled or killed. | Statute |
| EU - Farming - COUNCIL DIRECTIVE 93/119/EC on the protection of animals at the | COUNCIL DIRECTIVE 93/119/EC |
This directive reflects the EU's concern for a need to establish common minimum standards for the protection of animals at the time of slaughter or killing in order to ensure rational development of production and to facilitate the completion of the internal market in animals and animal products. The directive also states that at the time of slaughter or killing animals should be spared any avoidable pain or suffering. |
Statute | |
| AKERS v. SELLERS | 54 N.E.2d 779 (Ind.App.1944) | 114 Ind.App. 660 (1944) |
This Indiana case involves an action in replevin by John W. Akers against his former wife, Stella Sellers. The controversy at issue was ownership and possession of a Boston bull terrier dog. At the time of the divorce decree, the dog was not part of the property division and was instead left at the marriage domicile in custody of the former wife. Appellant-Akers claimed that legal title and the dog's best interests rested with him and unsuccessfully brought a suit in replevin in the lower court. On appeal, this Court held that there was no sufficient evidence to overturn the lower court's determination. The judgment was affirmed.
|
Case |