Results
| Title | Citation | Alternate Citation | Summary | Type |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| NH - Agricultural Animals - Chapter 435. Animal Care, Breeding and Feed | N.H. Rev. Stat. § 435:1 - 435:41 | NH ST § 435:1 - 435:41 | This New Hampshire chapter concerns the registration of breeding stallions and the proper care, feeding, and shelter of horses. The chapter also includes the New Hampshire Commercial Feed Law of 1971. Within this law are prohibitions on the misbranding or adulteration of commercial feed. The chapter additionally prohibits the feeding of raw garbage to swine. | Statute |
| Ocean Mammal Inst. v. Gates | Slip Copy, 2008 WL 2185180 (D.Hawai'i) |
Plaintiffs sued the Navy over the use of sonar; the Plaintiffs feared that the sonar would kill whales and other marine life. This case dealt with the required production of documents the Defendant claimed were privileged and or work product material. The Court found that the Defendant must hand over the material to the Plaintiffs because the documents were not in fact privileged. |
Case | |
| Qaddura v. State | 2007 Tex. App. LEXIS 1493 | 2007 WL 614087 (Tex.App.-Fort Worth) | The court held that the owner of livestock who placed them in the care of his tenant while he was on vacation for a month, but failed to provide his tenant with enough food for the livestock could be found guilty under the animal cruelty statute. | Case |
| People v. Richardson | 155 A.D.3d 1595, 66 N.Y.S.3d 757 (N.Y. App. Div. 2017), leave to appeal denied, 30 N.Y.3d 1119 (2018) | 2017 N.Y. Slip Op. 07857, 2017 WL 5183187 | In this New York case, defendant appeals from a three-county felony animal fighting conviction. Defendant's dog fighting activities came to light when police were dispatched to defendant's residence after defendant's wife reported a burglary in progress. Upon entry by consent, police found, in plain view, a wounded dog in a cage, several modified treadmills for use by dogs, blood on a water heater, and apparent dogfighting paraphernalia. After seeking a search warrant, the items were photographed and other evidence (supplements, training sticks, etc.) was collected. On appeal, the court rejected defendant's argument that the trial court erred by refusing to suppress all of the physical evidence as fruit of the poisonous tree. The court noted that the dogfighting paraphernalia were observed in plain view by responding policy officers. Additionally, police officers remaining at the house after the protective sweep to prevent the destruction of evidence while the search warrant was issued did not render the search unlawful. Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, the court concluded that the evidence was sufficient to establish that defendant intended to engage in dogfighting and that the dogs were deprived of medical treatment. In addition to the paraphernalia and collection of literature on dogfighting, defendant's dogs had extensive scarring and healing consistent with dogfighting and inconsistent with defendant's proffered "cat-scratch" and "broken window" explanations. Defendant's convictions and judgment of sentence were affirmed. | Case |
| OR - Animal Definitions - Chapter 87. Statutory Liens. Liens Generally. 87.142. Definitions | O. R. S. § 87.142 | This is Oregon's statutory definitions for Animal Statutes. | Statute | |
| MO - Fish and Game - Chapter 252 (The Wildlife and Forestry Law) | V.A.M.S. 252.002 - 252.333 | MO ST 252.002 - 252.333 |
This chapter establishes the Missouri Department of Conservation, outlines the agency's scope of authority, and includes all of the state's wildlife and endangered species statutes. |
Statute |
| King v. Karpe | 338 P.2d 979 (Ca.,1959) | 170 Cal.App.2d 344 (1959) |
Plaintiff sued for damages after a cow was sent to slaughter after a veterinarian had determined that she was incapable of breeding. The court recognized “peculiar value” of the cow where there was evidence that she was slaughtered before she had completed a course of treatment meant to restore her to brood status, that she could have produced for another five or six years, that the three bull calves she had produced were outstanding, that defendant took a half interest in them as the breeding fee and exhibited them at shows, that the cow's blood line produced calves particularly valuable for inbreeding, that plaintiff needed this type of stock to build up her herd, and that defendant had knowledge of these facts. The value of the bull to which the cow had been bred was also material to the cow’s actual value. |
Case |
| Strawser v. Wright | 610 N.E.2d 610 (Ohio App. 12 Dist., 1992) |
Plaintiff sued defendant dog breeders after defendants misrepresented that the dog had been vaccinated as a newborn against Parvo. In affirming the trial court's grant of summary judgment to defendants on the issue of negligent infliction of emotional distress the court noted that dogs are considered property in Ohio. While the court sympathized "with one who must endure the sense of loss which may accompany the death of a pet; however, we cannot ignore the law . . . Ohio law simply does not permit recovery for serious emotional distress which is caused when one witnesses the negligent injury or destruction of one's property." |
Case | |
| IA - Hunting - 481A.125A. Remote control or internet hunting--criminal and civil penalties | I.C.A. § 481A.125A | IA ST § 481A.125A | This Iowa law prohibits “remote control or internet hunting." This involves the acts of offering such services for sale as well as taking, or assisting in the take of a wild animal kept on a hunting preserve by remote control or internet hunting. A person who violates this section is guilty of a serious misdemeanor. A second or subsequent violation of this section is punishable as a class “D” felony. | Statute |
| NM - Equine Activity Liability - Article 13. Equine Liability | NMSA 1978, § 42-13-1 to 42-13-5 | NM ST § 42-13-1 to 42-13-5 | This act stipulates that any person, corporation or partnership is immune from liability for the death or injury of a rider, which resulted while the rider was engaged in an equine activity. However, there are exceptions to this rule: a person, corporation, or partnership will be held liable for injuries if he or she displays a conscious, reckless, or intentional disregard for the safety of the rider, and if the person, corporation, or partnership fails to make reasonable and prudent efforts in ensuring the safety of the rider. | Statute |