Results

Displaying 71 - 80 of 6637
Title Citation Alternate Citation Agency Citation Summary Type
NE - Breeder - Chapter 18 - Commercial Dog and Cat Operator Inspection Regulations Neb. Admin. R. & Regs. Tit. 23, Ch. 18, § 001 - 018 23 NE ADC Ch. 18, 001 - 018 This set of Nebraska regulations implements the Commercial Dog and Cat Operator Inspection Act. All persons operating a boarding kennel, pet shop, animal control facility, animal rescue, animal shelter, or acting as a dealer or commercial dog or cat breeder shall have a valid license issued by the Department in accordance with the Act and these regulations. Administrative
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
MD - Humane Slaughter - Maryland Wholesome Meat Act MD Code, Agriculture, § 4-101 - 131 MD AGRIC § 4-101 - 131 This section comprises Maryland's "Wholesome Meat Act." Included are laws related to licensing of slaughtering establishments, labeling of meat, and the state's humane slaughter provisions. The humane slaughter provisions state that it is the policy of the State to prevent inhumane methods of livestock slaughter at an official establishment. Humane methods include those by which livestock are rendered insensible to pain, by a single blow or gunshot, or by an electrical, chemical, or other rapid and effective means, before being shackled, hoisted, thrown, cast, or cut. Ritual slaughter defined by statute is also considered humane if done in compliance with the act. Use of a manually operated hammer, sledge, or poleax during a slaughtering operation is considered inhumane. Note that "livestock" here explicitly excludes poultry or other fowl. A person who violates this section is guilty of a misdemeanor and on conviction is subject to a fine not exceeding $100 for each violation. Statute
Crossroads Apartments Associates v. LeBoo 152 Misc.2d 830 (N.Y. 1991) Landlord brought an eviction proceeding against tenant with a history of mental illness for possession of a cat in his rental unit in violation of a no pets policy. Tenant alleged that he needed the cat to alleviate his "intense feelings of loneliness, anxiety, and depression, which are daily manifestations of his mental illness." The court held that in order to prove that the pet is necessary for the tenant to use and enjoy the dwelling, he must prove "that he has an emotional and psychological dependence on the cat which requires him to keep the cat in the apartment." The court denied the housing authority's motion for summary judgment, stating that there was a triable issue of fact as to whether the cat was necessary for the tenant to use and enjoy the dwelling. Case
Animal Law Index Volume 18, Part 2

Animal Law Review Volume 18, Issue 2 (Spring 2012)

 

 Policy
MS - Slaughter - Chapter 35. Meat Inspection Miss. Code Ann. § 75-35-1 to 75-35-327 MS ST § 75-35-1 to 75-35-327

These Mississippi statutes regulate meat products, animal slaughter, inspection and branding. Animals to be slaughtered must examined and slaughtered humanely, which means being “rendered insensible to pain... before being shackled, hoisted, thrown, cast or cut.” Meat and meat products must be labeled “Mississippi inspected and passed.” Any violation of the provisions may result in imprisonment and/or a fine.

 Statute
CT - Exotic Animals - Sec. 26-54-1. Wildlife pen specifications CT ADC § 26-54-1, CT ADC § 26-55-6 Regs. Conn. State Agencies § 26-54-1; Regs. Conn. State Agencies § 26-55-6 Connecticut regulation 26-54-1 gives the wildlife pen specifications for any bird or quadruped possessed under the provisions of section 26-54 or 26-55 of the General Statutes. In addition, Sec. 26-55-6 replaced 26-55-2 in 2012 (the rule on quadruped importation). Sec. 22-55-6 now divides animals into Categories 1 - 4 based on the dangerousness of the animal to people, whether it is an endangered or threatened species, and even the risk it poses to and the native environment. The rule then states that no person except certain entities like zoos, museums, USDA licensed exhibitors, and research facilities may possess Category One Wild Animals. Restrictions are also imposed on other categories of animals. The rule also details the grandfathering process for owning a primate that weighs less than 35 lbs. Administrative
IL - Ordinances - 5/3. Appointment of administrator; 510 I.L.C.S. 5/3 IL ST CH 510 § 5/3 This Illinois statute provides that the County Board Chairman with the consent of the County Board shall appoint an Administrator who may appoint as many Animal Control Wardens to aid him or her as authorized by the Board. The Board is authorized by ordinance to require the registration and microchipping of dogs and cats and shall impose an individual animal and litter registration fee. All persons selling dogs or cats or keeping registries of dogs or cats shall cooperate and provide information to the Administrator as required by the Board. Statute
People v. Zimberg 33 N.W.2d 104 (Mich. 1948) 321 Mich. 655 (Mich. 1948)

Defendants were charged with having in their possession in the city of Detroit with intent to sell pikeperch (yellow pickerel) that were undersized, contrary to a Michigan statute.  In response to defendants' challenge to the constitutionality of the statute, the court noted that it is universally held in this country that wild game and fish belong to the state and are subject to its power to regulate and control; that an individual may acquire only such limited or qualified property interest therein as the state chooses to permit.  Defendants also contended the statute violated equal protection.  The court disagreed, finding the argument is without foundation in fact, as the statute makes no discrimination.

Case

Pages