Results
Displaying 161 - 170 of 6639
| Title | Citation | Alternate Citation | Agency Citation | Summary | Type |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| IA - Lost Property - Chapter 556F. Lost Property | I. C. A. § 556F.1 - 18 | IA ST § 556F.1 - 18 | This section comprises Iowa's Lost Property Act. The lost property provisions and procedures cover "any lost goods, money, bank notes, or other things of any description whatever, of the value of five dollars and over." | Statute | |
| Anderson v. State (Unpublished) | 877 N.E.2d 1250 (Ind. App. 2007) |
After shooting a pet dog to prevent harm to Defendant's own dog, Defendant challenges his animal cruelty conviction. Defendant argues that since he was attempting to kill the dog, he did not intend to torture or mutilate the dog within the meaning of the statute. The court affirms his conviction, reasoning that the evidentiary record below supported his conviction. |
Case | ||
| Ecuador - Environmental - Organic Procedural Code | Ley 0 Registro Oficial Suplemento 506 de 22-may, 2015 | Ecuador's COGEP | This excerpt is from Ecuador's General Procedural. It contains provisions concerning the representation of nature. These provisions state that any person may file a lawsuit claiming damages on behalf of nature. More specifically, under the articles in Chapter II, nature can be legally represented by any person, entity, collectivity, or by the ombudsperson, who may also act on their initiative. Article 30 establishes who can be a plaintiff and a defendant. Nature is within the definition of these parties. | Statute | |
| Smith v. State | 491 S.W.3d 864 (Tex. App. 2016), petition for discretionary review refused (Aug. 24, 2016) | 2016 WL 1444143, 14-15-00037-CR, 2016 WL 1444143, (Tex. App.--Hous. [14th Dist.] Apr. 12, 2016) | Defendant Jonas Smith was convicted of aggravated assault and appealed. He argued that the trial court (1) erred by denying his motion to suppress his warrantless arrest; (2) abused its discretion by failing to grant a mistrial after the Plaintiff referenced the Defendant’s previous incarceration; and (3) abused its discretion by allowing a child witness to testify with the assistance of a service dog. The Court of Appeal of Texas, Houston (14th Dist.)., held that: 1. The police officer had probable cause to believe that the defendant committed an act of family violence, which justified his warrantless arrest; 2. any prejudice resulting from the Plaintiff’s reference to Defendant's prior incarceration was cured by prompt jury instruction to disregard reference; 3. allowing the child witness to testify with the assistance of a service dog was not likely to prejudice the jury in evaluating the child's testimony; and 4.any error in allowing the witness to testify with the assistance of a service dog was harmless. The Court of Appeals reasoned that the defendant did not present any argument during the trial about the jury being prejudiced by the presence of the service dog. Therefore, there was nothing present for review at the appellate level. Also, the Defendant did not identify any harm from the use of a service dog. The Defendant’s conviction was affirmed. | Case | |
| US - AWA - 2008 Public Law 110-246 | 2008 PL 110-246 | 122 Stat 1651 | The Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008, P.L. 110-246 amends the Animal Welfare Act by strengthening penalties related to animal fighting, including an increase in imprisonment. The 2008 bill also contained language prohibiting imports for resale of dogs unless they are at least six months of age, in good health, and have all necessary vaccinations, with some exemptions defined. Finally, fines for violations of the Animal Welfare Act increased from $2500 to $10,000 per violation, per animal, per day. | Statute | |
| Rivero v. Humane Soc. of Fayette County | Slip Copy, 2009 WL 18704 (W.D.Pa.) | Plaintiffs brought action against Defendants under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging Defendants violated their First and Fourth Amendment rights under the United States Constitution after Defendant dog control officers removed Plaintiffs’ dog from their home during an investigation into a report of a dead dog. The United States District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania granted Defendant Township’s motion for partial summary judgment, finding that Plaintiffs’ allegations, standing alone, do not state a claim against Defendant-Township, and that Plaintiffs failed to provide any factual support for their state law claims. | Case | ||
| Hanrahan v. Hometown America, LLC | 90 So.3d 915 (Fla.App. 4 Dist.) | 2012 WL 2327814 (Fla.App. 4 Dist.) |
While walking his dog one evening, the plaintiff's husband was attacked by fire ants. In an attempt to remove the ants off his person, the plaintiff's husband collapsed in the shower. Two days later, he died. As a representative for her husband's estate and in her own capacity, the plaintiff filed a negligence suit against her landlord. After the trial court granted the landlord's motion for summary judgment, the plaintiff appealed. Affirming the lower court's decision, the appeals court reasoned that since the landlord did not harbor, possess, or introduce the fire ants onto the premises, the landlord owed no duty to the plaintiff. |
Case | |
| Amparo Directo D.A.- 454/2021 - Mexico | DA 10417/2021 | The administrative tribunal in Mexico City recognizes companion animals as family members, protected under Article 4 of their Constitution. Citing the Supreme Court of Justice, the tribunal stated that there are different types of families that are protected constitutionally, which includes some families that consider domestic animals their members. This is the decision to an Amparo against a resolution issued by the Institute of Administrative Verification (Instituto de Verificación Administrativa) holding that the owner of a pet boarding facility providing grooming and training services lacked the land use permits to have the commercial establishment. The owner of the pet boarding argued that she would only use 20% of her home for these purposes. After citing comparative law from countries such as Spain, Colombia, and Brazil, the court stated that “currently pets are considered sentient beings that are also part of the family nucleus and require attention and care. Therefore, the service provided by the Amparo promoter has become necessary for people or families also made up of domestic animals, who are looking for a place [to] care for their pets when they are away from their home for a long time” and, as such, these types of families ought to be considered by the authorities. The court stated that domestic animals “play a role of protection, support, company, affection, and care towards humans. Even the reciprocal attachment relationship between people and domestic animals is clear in multispecies families because they are treated as part of the family. They are, in a few words, members of it. Hence the name multispecies or interspecies family.” | Case | ||
| Canada Migratory Birds Convention Act, 1994 | TS 628 | Per Digest of Federal Resource Laws of Interest to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service: This 1916 treaty adopted a uniform system of protection for certain species of birds which migrate between the United States and Canada, in order to assure the preservation of species either harmless or beneficial to man. Sets certain dates for closed seasons on migratory birds. Prohibits hunting insectivorous birds, but allows killing of birds under permit when injurious to agriculture. The Convention was signed at Washington, D.C., on August 16, 1916, and ratified by the United States on September 1, 1916, and by Great Britain on October 20, 1916. Documents of ratification were exchanged on December 7, 1916. Implementing legislation for the United States was accomplished by enactment of the Migratory Bird Treaty Act in 1918 (16 USC 703-711; 40 Stat. 755). Canada and the United States signed an agreement on January 30, 1979, to amend the treaty to allow subsistence hunting of waterfowl outside of the normal hunting season, but it was never ratified by the Senate and never took effect. The treaty was amended in 1995 to establish a legal framework for the subsistence take of birds in Alaska and northern Canada by Alaska Natives and Aboriginal people in Canada. The Senate provided its advice and consent to the amendments in November, 1997. The treaty was formally implemented in 1999. | Treaty | ||
| CT - Horse - § 22-415. Inhumane transportation of equines. Penalty. Regulations | C.G.S.A. § 22-415 | CT ST § 22-415 | This Connecticut law makes it unlawful to carry any equine in an unnecessarily cruel or inhumane manner, or in a way and manner which might endanger the equine or knowingly and wilfully authorizes or permits such equine to be subjected to unnecessary torture, suffering or cruelty of any kind. Violation results in a fine of not less than one hundred dollars or more than five hundred dollars. [Also see the administrative regulations at https://www.animallaw.info/administrative/connecticut-equines-transportation-equines]. | Statute |