Results
Displaying 1 - 10 of 6636
| Title | Citation | Alternate Citation | Agency Citation | Summary | Type | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| IN - Cattle Slaughter - DELHI AGRICULTURAL CATTLE PRESERVATION ACT, 1994 | The Act, specific to the National Capital Region of Delhi, prohibits the slaughter of agricultural cattle such as cows, calves, bulls and bullocks. The Act bans the transport of cattle from Delhi to places outside Delhi for the purpose of slaughter. Persons who wish to export cattle must apply for a permit and submit an undertaking that the cattle shall not be slaughtered. The burden of proof is on the person who is accused under the Act of the slaughter, transport, export, sale, purchase or possession of flesh of agricultural cattle. | Statute | ||||
| State v. Amos | 17 N.E.3d 9 (2017) | 2014 -Ohio- 3097 | After witnessing the 73 year old defendant-appellant emerge from area by the veterinary's dumpster holding an empty, wire cage animal trap, an employee of the clinic followed the defendant-appellant's car and obtained the vehicle's license plate number. Upon returning to the dumpster, the employee found a kitten with matted eyes that seemed unhealthy. The defendant-appellant was charged with one count of animal abandonment in violation of R.C. 959.01 and was found guilty. Defendant-appellant appealed her conviction and sentence on the grounds that the court erred in finding beyond a reasonable doubt that she was a keeper or, if she was a keeper, the court erred in determining that she abandoned the animal. The Ohio Court of Appeals held that once the defendant captured the animal in a cage, she assumed the responsibility that she would treat the animal humanely and could therefore be considered a “keeper.” Since Amos captured the animal and released it in another location without taking steps to make sure the animal would be found, the Ohio Court of Appeals also held that a reasonable person could have found beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant-appellant had “abandoned” the animal. The judgment was therefore affirmed. | Case | ||
| Hair v. Quail Corners Animal Hospital |
Standard veterinary malpractice case for a show dog. Includes Interrogatories. Veterinarian negligently treated show dog after she was shot by a hunter. In addition, another vet then left a needle inside the dog. Vets failed to take the needle out, causing the dog's death. |
Pleading | ||||
| Hopson v. DPP | [1997] C.O.D. 229 |
The owner of a bird of prey had kept it in a wire aviary for at least six weeks, during which it had injured itself by repeatedly flying into the wire mesh. Having been convicted on these facts of an offence of cruelly ill-treating the bird contrary to the first limb of s 1(1)(a) of the Protection of Animals Act 1911, he appealed, contending that under that limb, unlike the second limb, he should only have been convicted if he was guilty of a positive act of deliberate cruelty. Dismissing the appeal, the Divisional Court held that a person could be guilty of cruel ill-treatment of an animal he was responsible for by allowing it to remain in a situation where it was continuing to injure itself, even if he did not desire to bring about the harm. |
Case | |||
| Canada - Saskatchewan - Dangerous Animals | S.S. 2005, c. M-36.1, s. 374 - 380 | This set of laws comprises the Saskatchewan, Canada dangerous animal laws. Under the Act, any person who owns an animal for the purpose of fighting, or trains, torments, badgers, baits or otherwise uses an animal for the purpose of causing or encouraging the animal to make unprovoked attacks on persons or domestic animals is guilty of an offence. In addition, a peace officer or designated officer may destroy any animal that he or she finds injuring or viciously attacking a person or a domestic animal. The Act outlines the actions that result in an animal being declared dangerous (i.e., chased a person in a vicious or threatening manner, bit a person or domestic animal without provocation, etc.) and the procedure to declare such an animal dangerous. | Statute | |||
| Derecho Animal Volume 11 Núm 1 |
|
Policy | ||||
| NC - Restaurant, animals - 2656 PHYSICAL FACILITIES | 15A NC ADC 18A.2656 | 15A NCAC 18A.2656 | This North Carolina regulation makes amendments to the Food Code related to dogs and cats in outdoor dining areas. Dogs and cats are allowed in outdoor dining areas provided the dogs or cats are physically restrained and do not pass through the indoor area of the food establishment. All live animals, including pet cats and dogs, are not permitted to come into physical contact with any serving food, serving dishes, tableware, linens, utensils, or other food service items. Employees of a food establishment who prepare or handle food must not physically contact any live animals. | Administrative | ||
| MI - Alma - Breed - DIVISION 2. VICIOUS DOGS | ALMA, MI., CODE OF ORDINANCES §§ 10-51 - 10-60 (2006) |
In Alma, it is unlawful to keep, harbor, own, or possess any vicious dog, with exceptions. "Vicious dog" is defined as any dog with a propensity to attack, injure, or otherwise endanger the safety of people or domestic animals. A vicious dog is also any dog that attacks or indicates that it is liable to attack a person or domestic animal. There is a rebuttable presumption that a pit bull dog is a vicious dog. |
Local Ordinance | |||
| State v. Marcellino | 149 N.E.3d 927 (Ohio App. 11 Dist., 2019) | 2019-Ohio-4837 (Ohio App. 11 Dist., 2019) | Bianca Marcellino was charged and convicted of two counts of cruelty to animals after a search of her residence revealed two horses that were in need of emergency medical aid. Marcellino was ordered to pay restitution and she subsequently appealed. Marcellino argued that the trial court abused its discretion by denying the motion for a Franks hearing where there were affidavits demonstrating material false statements in the affidavit for the search warrant. The Court contended that the trial court did not err in failing to hold a Franks hearing because even if the Court sets aside the alleged false statements in the affidavit, there remained an overwhelming amount of sufficient statements to support a finding of probable cause. The Court also held that trial courts have the authority to order restitution only to the actual victims of an offense or survivors of the victim, therefore, the award of restitution to the humane society was not valid because humane societies are a governmental entity and cannot be victims of abuse. The Court ultimately affirmed the judgment of the municipal court and reversed and vacated the order of restitution. | Case | ||
| LA - Vehicle, animal - § 1738.1. Immunity from liability; gratuitous emergency care to domestic animal | LSA-R.S. 37:1738.1 | LA R.S. 37:1738.1 | This 2018 Louisiana law states that there shall be no liability on the part of a person for property damage or trespass to a motor vehicle, if the damage was caused while the person was rescuing an animal in distress. The person must first do the following: (1) make a good-faith attempt to locate the owner before forcibly entering the vehicle (based on the circumstances); (2) contact local law enforcement/911 before forcibly entering; (3) determine the vehicle is locked and has a good-faith belief there is no other reasonable means for the animal to be removed; (3) believe that removal of the animal is necessary because the animal is in imminent danger of death; (4) use no more force than necessary to rescue the animal; (5) place a notice on the windshield providing details including contact information and the location of the animal; and (6) remain with the animal in a safe location reasonably close to the vehicle until first responders arrive. For purposes of the law, "animal” means any cat or dog kept for pleasure, companionship, or other purposes that are not purely commercial. | Statute |