Results
Displaying 71 - 80 of 6638
| Title | Citation | Alternate Citation | Agency Citation | Summary | Type |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| City of Garland v. White | 368 S.W.2d 12 (Tex. Civ. App. 1963). |
Police officers were trespassers and could be held civilly liable for damages when they entered a dog owner's property with the intent to unlawfully kill the dog. Reports had been made that the dog was attacking other animals but because the attacks were not imminent, in progress, or recent, the killing of the dog was not lawful. |
Case | ||
| PA - Permits - Chapter 133. Wildlife Classification. | 58 PA ADC § 133.1 - .6; 58 PA ADC § 133.21; 58 PA ADC § 133.41 | 58 Pa. Code § 133.1 to .6; 58 Pa. Code § 133.21; 58 Pa. Code § 133.41 | This set of Pennsylvania regulations defines terms used such as protected mammals, protected birds, endangered species, threatened species, and furbearers. | Administrative | |
| OR - Fur - 167.390. Commerce in fur of domestic cats and dogs | O. R. S. § 167.390 | OR ST § 167.390 | In Oregon, a person may not take, buy, sell, barter or otherwise exchange for commerce in fur purposes the raw fur or products that include the fur of a domestic cat or dog if the fur is obtained through a process that kills or maims the cat or dog. Violation is a Class A misdemeanor when the offense is committed with a culpable mental state as defined in ORS 161.085. | Statute | |
| MO - Lost Dog - Uniform Disposition of Unclaimed Property Act | V. A. M. S. 447.010 - 110 | MO ST 447.010 - 110 | This section comprises Missouri's Uniform Disposition of Unclaimed Property Act. | Statute | |
| HI - Trusts for domestic or pet animals. - [§ 554D-408]. Trust for care of animal | H R S § 554D-408 | HI ST § 554D-408 | This statute represents Hawaii's pet trust law (note: this new section replaces former H.R.S. § 560:7-501). A trust for the care of one or more designated domestic or pet animals shall be valid. The trust terminates when no living animal is covered by the trust. A governing instrument shall be liberally construed to bring the transfer within this section, to presume against the precatory or honorary nature of its disposition, and to carry out the general intent of the transferor. Extrinsic evidence shall be admissible in determining the transferor's intent. | Statute | |
| Triumph Foods, LLC v. Campbell | --- F.Supp.3d ----, 2024 WL 421994 (D. Mass. Feb. 5, 2024) | This case was brought by a group of pork producers and farmers to challenge the Massachusetts' Prevention of Farm Animal Cruelty Act on the grounds that it violates the dormant Commerce Clause by improperly regulating interstate commerce. The Act would require pork producers to phase out certain means of pig confinement in order to sell pork products in Massachusetts. In response, the state filed a motion to dismiss arguing that there is no causally connected harm to the pork producers, which the court denied. The court first evaluated the slaughterhouse exemption, which exempts sales from the requirement that they must take place within Massachusetts if the buyer takes physical possession of the pork while on the premises of an establishment inspected under the Federal Meat Inspection Act. Plaintiff argued that as an out-of-state pork processor, it could not take advantage of this exemption, even though it operates entirely federally inspected facilities, because it ships its product into Massachusetts from out-of-state and, its buyers do not take physical possession of its product while at its facilities. The court found that this exemption has a discriminatory effect, and vacated the order in part to allow the court to consider whether the Act with the slaughterhouse exemption severed is preempted by the Federal Meat Inspection Act. | Case | ||
| SD - Vehicle - SDCL § 41-1-12. Euthanasia of animal injured in motor vehicle accident | SDCL § 41-1-12 - 13 | SD ST § 41-1-12 - 13 | Any person who has seriously injured a wildlife animal or who comes upon a wildlife animal that has been seriously injured in a motor vehicle accident may euthanize the animal if that person has the means, skill, and will to euthanize humanely. | Statute | |
| State v. Newcomb | 359 Or 756 (2016) | In this case, the Supreme Court of Oregon reviewed a case in which defendant accused the State of violating her constitutional rights by taking a blood sample of her dog without a warrant to do so. Ultimately, the court held that the defendant did not have a protected privacy interest in the dog’s blood and therefore the state did not violate defendant’s constitutional rights. Defendant’s dog, Juno, was seized by the Humane Society after a worker made a visit to plaintiff’s home and had probable cause to believe that Juno was emaciated from not receiving food from plaintiff. After Juno was seized and taken into custody for care, the veterinarian took a blood sample from Juno to confirm that there was no other medical reason as to why Juno was emaciated. Defendant argued that this blood test was a violation of her constitutional rights because the veterinarian did not have a warrant to perform the test. The court dismissed this argument and held that once Juno was taken into custody, defendant had “lost her rights of dominion and control over Juno, at least on a temporary basis.” Finally, the court held that because Juno was lawfully seized and Juno’s blood was “not ‘information’ that defendant placed in Juno for safekeeping or to conceal from view,” defendant’s constitutional rights had not been violated. | Case | ||
| NM - Invasive Species - Chapter 17. Game and Fish and Outdoor Recreation. | NMSA 1978, § 17-4-35 | NM ST § 17-4-35 | These New Mexico statutes pertain to controlling aquatic invasive species. If a conveyance or equipment has been in an infested water body, the owner must decontaminate it or have it inspected and certified prior to entering another water body in the state. Law enforcement officers must take action to prevent infested equipment from entering water bodies, and may impound equipment if the person transporting it refuses to submit to an inspection and the officer has reason to believe that an aquatic invasive species may be present. | Statute | |
| MD - Pet Trust - §Title 14. Trusts. | MD Code, Estates and Trusts, § 14.5-407 | MD EST & TRST § 14.5-407 | Maryland enacted its original "pet trust" law in 2009. The law was then repealed and reenacted in 2015 under a different section. Under the law, a trust may be created to provide for the care of an animal alive during the lifetime of the settlor. The trust terminates when the last animal subject to the trust dies. The property of the trust may only be used for the intended purpose of the trust (e.g., taking care of the animal). | Statute |