Results
Displaying 41 - 50 of 6637
| Title | Citation | Alternate Citation | Summary | Type |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Gruber v. YMCA of Greater Indianapolis | 34 N.E.3d 264 (Ind. Ct. App. 2015) | 2015 WL 3534886 (Ind. Ct. App. 2015) | An eleven-year-old boy was at a YMCA camp when a pig—which had never injured anyone or exhibited any dangerous propensities—stuck its head between the bars of its pen and grabbed the boy's hand, causing injuries. The boy and his mother sued the camp, and the camp filed a motion for summary judgment. The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of the camp. On appeal, the boy and his mother asked the court to change the standard for liability of owners of domestic animals to that of strict liability when the animal was not a cat or dog. Since the Indiana Supreme Court precedent was clear that this general rule applied to all domestic animals—and not just cats and dogs—the court declined their invitation to alter the standard. The trial court's entry of summary judgment in favor of the camp was therefore affirmed. | Case |
| US - AWA - 1976 Public Law 94-279 | 1976 PL 94-279 | The 1976 Amendments of the AWA dealt with several new topics: (1) transportation carriers and intermediate handlers of animals were brought under the provisions of the Act, (2) a number of specific transportation problems were addressed by Congress, (3) a new provision was added which made it a crime to knowingly sponsor, participate in, transport, or use the mails to promote fights between live birds, live dogs or other mammals, (4) the penalty provisions were rewritten, allowing the broad use of civil fines. | Statute | |
| Connecticut General Statutes 1918: Chapter 329: Section 6268 | Conn. Gen. Stat. § 6268 (1918) | Section 6268 of Chapter 329 from the 1918 General Laws of Connecticut covers the unlawful injury to certain property of another. Specifically, the statute states the punishment for hurting, maiming, poisoning anther's cattle, ox, horse, and mule. | Statute | |
| Molinari v. Tuskegee University | 339 F. Supp. 2d. 1293 (N.D. Ala. 2004) |
A veterinary student was kicked by a cow while trying to perform a medical procedure. The student brought a personal injury lawsuit against the professor and university for negligently allowing the university-owned cow to kick her and not providing timely medical treatment. Defendants' motion for summary judgment was granted in part and denied in part. |
Case | |
| U.S. v. Stevens | 130 S.Ct. 1577 (2010) | 176 L.Ed.2d 435, 78 USLW 4267, 38 Media L. Rep. 1577, 10 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 4819, 2010 Daily Journal D.A.R. 5779, 22 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. S 221 |
Defendant was convicted of violating statute prohibiting the commercial creation, sale, or possession of depictions of animal cruelty. The Supreme Court held that the statute was unconstitutional for being substantially overbroad: it did not require the depicted conduct to be cruel, extended to depictions of conduct that were only illegal in the State in which the creation, sale, or possession occurred, and because the exceptions clause did not substantially narrow the statute's reach. (2011 note: 18 U.S.C. § 48 was amended following this ruling in late 2010). |
Case |
| IN - Draught Animals - THE PREVENTION OF CRUELTY TO DRAUGHT AND PACK ANIMALS RULES, 1965 | Section 38 of the prevention of cruelty to Animals Act, 1960 | The Rules, drafted under Section 38(2) of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1965, regulate the weights that cattle and horses can draw. The Rules also stipulate the conditions under which animals may not be allowed to draw vehicles or carry loads. The Rules also prohibit the use of spiked sticks and bits. | Statute | |
| IL - Testing - 620/17.2. Cosmetic testing on animals | 410 I.L.C.S. 620/17.2 | IL ST CH 410 § 620/17.2 | This law from 2019 makes it unlawful for a manufacturer to import for profit, sell, or offer for sale in this State any cosmetic, if the cosmetic was developed or manufactured using an animal test that was conducted or contracted by the manufacturer, or any supplier of the manufacturer, on or after January 1, 2020. There is an exception when an ingredient is in wide use and cannot be replaced by another ingredient capable of performing a similar function; a specific human health problem is substantiated and the need to conduct animal tests is justified and supported by a detailed research protocol proposed as the basis for the evaluation; and there is not a nonanimal alternative method accepted for the relevant endpoint by the relevant federal or State regulatory authority. | Statute |
| Great Ape Laws by State |
|
Basic page | ||
| South Africa - Biological Diversity - Regulations | These South African regulations were made relating to listed threatened and protected species of the National Environmental Management: Biodiversity Act, 2004. The purpose of these regulations is to further regulate the permit system set out in Chapter 7 of the Biodiversity Act insofar as that system applies to restricted activities involving specimens of listed threatened or protected species; to provide for the registration of captive breeding operations, commercial exhibition facilities, game farms, nurseries, scientific institutions, sanctuaries and rehabilitation facilities and wildlife traders; to provide for the regulation of the carrying out of a specific restricted activity, namely hunting; to provide for the prohibition of specific restricted activities involving specific listed threatened or protected species; to provide for the protection of wild populations of listed threatened species; and to provide for the composition and operating procedure of the Scientific Authority. | Statute | ||
| NO - Aquaculture - Regulations concerning abattoirs and processing plants for aquaculture animals | Chap. 1 - 5, Regulations concerning abattoirs and processing plants for aquaculture animals |
The purpose of these regulations is to promote good health in aquaculture animals and ensure good fish welfare. |
Statute |