Results
| Title | Citation | Alternate Citation | Summary | Type |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| ZW - Cruelty - Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act | Title 19, Chapter 19:09 |
This law constitutes Zimbabwe's cruelty to animals act. Under the act, “animal” means: (a) any kind of domestic vertebrate animal; (b) any kind of wild vertebrate animal in captivity; (c) the young of any animal referred to above. The law prohibits the cruel beating, kicking, overriding, overdriving, overloading, or torturing of animals, among other things. Section 4 requires “knackers” (any person whose trade or business it is to kill any horse, mule, ass, bovine, sheep, goat or pig, the meat of which is primarily intended for animals) to comply with regulations. Section 5 deals with the control of pet shops and other places where animals are kept in captivity for trading purposes. |
Statute | |
| T. , J. A. s/ infracción Ley 14.346 | Id SAIJ: FA12340061 | The Supreme Court upheld the decision of the lower court that sentenced the Defendant to eleven months of imprisonment after finding him criminally responsible for acts of cruelty in violation of Article 1 of Ley 14.346 against a stray dog. The Defendant was found guilty of sexually abusing a dog, who he forced into his premises. The dog’s genital area was sheared and she had serious injuries, which the veterinarian concluded were clear signs of penetration. The Supreme Court referred to the Chamber of Appeals on Criminal Matters of Parana "B.J.L. s/ infracción a la Ley 14.346", of October 1, 2003, where the referred court stated that “the norms of Ley 14.346 protect animals against acts of cruelty and mistreatment, is not based on mercy, but on the legal recognition of a framework of rights for other species that must be preserved, not only from predation, but also from treatment that is incompatible with the minimum rationality." Further, "the definition of ‘person’ also includes in our pluralistic and anonymous societies a rational way of contact with animals that excludes cruel or degrading treatment." | Case | |
| U.S. v. Winddancer | 435 F.Supp.2d 687 (M.D.Tenn., 2006) | 2006 WL 1722432 (M.D.Tenn.) |
This matter comes before the court on a Motion to Dismiss the Indictment filed by the defendant. The defendant, Ed Winddancer, was indicted on six counts relating to possessing and bartering eagle feathers and feathers plucked from other migratory birds. Winddancer did not have standing to challenge the manner in which the MBTA has been administered against him, because applying for a permit under the MBTA would not have been clearly futile. With regard to the BGEPA, the court found that defendant showed that the BGEPA substantially burdens his ability to possess eagle feathers. However, the court found that he did not show that his desire to possess the feathers arises from a sincere religious belief. Further, the court found that the government indeed has a compelling interest in protecting the bald and golden eagle, especially since there is no reasonable forensic method by which law enforcement can determine if a bird was accidentally or intentionally killed, killed a hundred years ago, or killed yesterday. |
Case |
| CA - Cruelty - Consolidated Cruelty and Penal Code Sections | Cal. Penal Code §§ 286.5; 596 - 600.5 | These sections from the California Penal Code detail the crimes associated with animals, including anti-cruelty provisions, animal fighting statutes, unlawful killing methods, horse-specific laws, and a miscellaneous section containing provisions related to guide dogs, police dogs, bestiality, etc. | Statute | |
| AR - Racing - Arkansas Greyhound Racing Law | A.C.A. §§ 23-111-101 to 23-111-518 | AR ST §§ 23-111-101 to 23-111-518 | This Act gives the Arkansas Racing Commission sole jurisdiction over the business and the sport of greyhound racing. Greyhound racing may only be conducted in the State of Arkansas by a franchise that is approved by the Arkansas Racing Commission. A franchise must be a corporation organized under the state of Arkansas. A franchise may not be a individual, partnerships, associations, or trusts. A franchise may not be granted by the Commission until it is authorized by a majority of the qualified electors within the county in which the franchise intends to operate. The voters will be able to choose whether to allow or reject the Racing Commission's grant to the franchise to conduct greyhound racing. Each county is only allowed to have one franchise conducting greyhound racing. | Statute |
| AU - Wildlife - Wilderness Protection Act 1992 (SA) | Wilderness Protection Act 1992 |
An Act to provide for the protection of wilderness and the restoration of land to its condition before European colonisation; and for other purposes. |
Statute | |
| CT - Cruelty - § 54-86n. Appointment of advocate in proceeding re the welfare or custody of a cat or dog. | C.G.S.A. § 54-86n | CT ST § 54-86n | This 2016 law states that, in a cruelty or welfare proceedings, the court may order, upon its own initiative or upon request of a party or counsel for a party, that a separate advocate be appointed to represent the interests of justice. That advocate can monitor the case and supply the court with information about the welfare of the cat or dog. The Department of Agriculture shall maintain a list of attorneys with knowledge of animal issues and the legal system and a list of law schools that have students, or anticipate having students, with an interest in animal issues and the legal system. Such attorneys and law students shall be eligible to serve on a voluntary basis as advocates under this section. | Statute |
| U.S. v. One Afghan Urial Ovis Orientalis | 964 F.2d 474 (5th Cir. 1992) |
Claimant appeals the order granting summary judgment to the government in a order of forfeiture under the Lacey Act for the hide and parts of a sheep killed in Pakistan and exported to the U.S. Claimant argues that because there is no national Pakistani law enacted for the protection of wildlife, no Pakistani law interferes with his right to remove the respondent sheep from Pakistan based upon the provincial permit. The court disagreed, noting the Pakistan Constitution honors provincial law to the extent that it does not conflict with national law and Pakistani law prohibits the export of "wild animal skins and garments made from such skins, products or derivatives of such skins." The Court held that the Government established probable cause for the forfeiture, and Claimant did not demonstrate that any genuine issue of material fact exists which would preclude the award of summary judgment. |
Case | |
| AK - Elephants - Article 1. Buffalo, Musk Oxen, Elk, and Elephants | AS § 16.40.010 - 060 | AK ST § 16.40.010 - 060 | This section of Alaska laws concerns the disposition of surplus buffalo and musk oxen as well as the requirements for obtaining a permit for elephants. An elephant permit may be issued only to a person who intends to exhibit the animal commercially; possesses facilities to maintain the animal under positive control and humane conditions; and maintains personal injury and property damage insurance in an amount established by the commissioner. | Statute |
| MARILYN DANTON v. ST. FRANCIS 24 HOUR ANIMAL HOSPITAL, P.C. a Washington professional services corporation (UBI 602-029-072); an | This Washington case involves plaintiff's suit against defendant animal hospital for the escape of her cat while the cat was being boarded at the hospital. Plaintiff sued for simple negligence with a presumption of res ipsa loquitur and breach of bailment contract. With regard to damages, plaintiff pleads intrinsic value of "Moochie," which includes as component the emotional distress suffered by plaintiff. Following a six-person jury trial, the jury returned a verdict in favor of plaintiff on her negligence and breach of contract claims in a total amount of $2,500.00 | Pleading |