Results
| Title | Citation | Alternate Citation | Summary | Type |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| A night monkey in a soiled cage looking out from plastic hideout | Slideshow Images | |||
| Cleveland Hts. v. Jones | 2006 WL 256638 (Ohio App. 8 Dist.) | Slip Copy, 2006 WL 256638 (Ohio App. 8 Dist.), 2006-Ohio-454 | In this Ohio case, the defendant was convicted in the Cleveland Heights Municipal Court of keeping more than two dogs at his single-family residence contrary to an ordinance that limited the keeping of more than two dogs at a single-family residence (defendant was found to have three dogs, one of whom he said was "visiting" his daughter). In affirming defendant's conviction, the court found no merit to defendant's challenge that the term "kept" was ambiguous. Further, the evidence adduced at trial was sufficient to support defendant's conviction where the officer witnessed the dogs at the residence and defendant admitted to having three dogs in his home even without ownership of the third. | Case |
| TX - Ordinances - § 826.034. Restraint; Criminal Penalty. | V. T. C. A., Health & Safety Code § 826.034 | TX HEALTH & S § 826.034 | This Texas statute provides that a person commits an offense (Class C misdemeanor) if the person fails or refuses to restrain a dog or cat owned by the person and the animal is required to be restrained under the ordinances or rules adopted under this chapter. | Statute |
| NV - Endangered Species - Protection and Propagation of Native Fauna (Chapter 503) | N. R. S. 503.584 - 503.589 | NV ST 503.584 - 503.589 | These statutes provide that the Legislature of Nevada has an interest in protecting native species from extinction and sets forth the authority to establish programs to protect designated species. However, if a native species is found to be destructive under the statute, the statute provides for removal if appropriate. Under statute, the ultimate responsibility for management rests with the governor for reviewing state programs and entering into interstate and federal agreements. | Statute |
| In re: JULIAN J. TONEY AND ANITA L. TONEY | 54 Agric. Dec. 923 (1995) | 923, 1995 WL 785952 (U.S.D.A.) | Civil penalty of $200,000.00 (largest civil penalty ever imposed under Act) was appropriate, where degree of willfulness and flagrancy of respondents' violations was astonishing, and even after hearing was pending on initial complaint, respondents continued to violate Act. | Case |
| Excerpt Federal Criminal Code of Mexico | Código Penal Federal de Mexico | This excerpt contains the provisions of the Federal Code of Mexico within "Crimes Against the Environment and Environmental Management." It contains a dedicated chapter to biodiversity, where it gives special protection to wildlife. It does not mention protection of domestic animals. However, it contains provisions prohibiting dog fighting (Article 419 Bis). According to Article 1, this code applies to federal crimes committed within the country. | Statute | |
| In re New Jersey Pinelands Com'n Resolution | 812 A.2d 1113 (N.J.Super.A.D.,2003) | 356 N.J.Super. 363 |
This case concerns the approval of a settlement agreement for a residential development project that contained habitat critical to the survival of a local population of timber rattlesnakes, an endangered species in New Jersey. The court's review of the record found that there is no reason to interfere with the determination by the Commission, since there was ample evidence to support the Commission's decision to approve the settlement. The court also agreed with the lower court that the environmental organizations lacked standing to bring an endangered species counterclaim before the lower court. Specifically, the court found that the Department of Environmental Protection and the Commission did not fail to act in implementing the endangered species act; thus, no standing was conferred upon the groups. The court also noted that the DEP and the Commission acted in their requisite complementary roles in effecting the Act. |
Case |
| RI - Hunting - § 20-13-16. Harassment of hunters, trappers, and fishers prohibited | Gen. Laws, 1956, § 20-13-16 | RI ST § 20-13-16 | This law reflects Rhode Island's hunter harassment law. The law provides that no person shall obstruct or interfere with the lawful taking of wildlife by another person at the location where the activity is taking place with intent to prevent the lawful taking. The language states that the listed actions must be done intentionally or knowingly. Violation results in a "civil violation" with a forfeiture of not less than $100 nor more $500. | Statute |
| SIRMANS v. THE STATE | 244 Ga. App. 252 (2000) |
Criminal defendant was convicted of four counts of animal cruelty and one count of simple assault. The motion to suppress was properly denied, because the search was authorized under the "plain view" doctrine and any objections regarding photographs were subsequently waived when they were tendered into evidence without objection. The trial court did not have authority to deprive defendant of animals which the State failed to demonstrate were neglected or abused, because such animals were not contraband or evidence of a crime. |
Case | |
| MT - Horse Slaughter - Chapter 9. Slaughter. | MCA 81-9-240, 241 | MT ST 81-9-240, 241 | This Montana statute limits the ability of a court to issue an injunction aimed at delaying or stopping the construction of an equine slaughter or processing facility. Additionally, the law provides that if a person files an action against the operation of an equine slaughter or processing facility and does not prevail, the person is liable for all financial losses the facility suffers if the court issues an injunction that halts operations while the action is pending. | Statute |