Results

Displaying 111 - 120 of 6638
Title Citation Alternate Citation Agency Citation Summary Type
SC - Hunting - § 50-11-852. Unlawful to molest or kill birds of prey; bald eagles; penalties. Code 1976 § 50-11-852 SC ST § 50-11-852 This statute prohibits the killing of any bird of prey, resulting in a misdemeanor conviction. If the bird is a bald eagle, the individual faces a maximum fine of up to $1,000 and one year in jail in addition to the revocation of hunting privileges for five years. Statute
CITY OF TOLEDO, Appellant, v. Paul TELLINGS, Appellee.

This is the City of Toldeo's Appellant Brief filed in the Supreme Court case of Toledo v. Tellings (871 N.E.2d 1152 (2007)). The Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals decision, finding that the state and the city have a legitimate interest in protecting citizens against unsafe conditions caused by pit bulls.

Pleading
Rogers v. Teignbridge District Council

A planned event called "The Creepy Crawly Show" was to have been held at a racecourse and to have involved the display and sale of small exotic animals by a number of different breeders, dealers and enthusiasts. The event's organizer applied to the local council for a pet shop licence under the Pet Animals Act 1951. The application was refused on the ground that the event was prohibited by section 2 of the Act which states that a person is guilty of an offence if he "carries on a business of selling animals as pets in any part of a street or public place, [or] at a stall or barrow in a market". The organizer's appeal to the local magistrates court was dismissed. Held: the holding of the event would have involved the carrying on a business of selling pets in a "public place". It would also have involved the selling of animals in a market. The event was therefore prohibited by section 2 and that it would have been unlawful for the local authority to have licensed it.

Case
Animal Law Index Volume 4

Animal Law Review, Volume 4 (1998)

 

INTRODUCTION

THE CONFLICT BETWEEN SPECIES IN AN EVER MORE CROWDED WORLD
Dr. Jane Goodall

 

Policy
The Equine Identification (England) Regulations 2018 The Equine Identification (England) Regulations 2018 Owners have two years to ensure all equines born before 30th June 2009 are chipped. Some wild and semi-wild equids are exempt. Non-compliant owners risk being fined. Statute
VA - Licenses - § 3.2-6527. How to obtain license Va. Code Ann. § 3.2-6527 VA ST § 3.2-6527 This Virginia statute describes the process under which an individual may obtain a dog or cat license. Generally, it states that any person may obtain a dog license or cat license if required by an ordinance by making oral or written application to the treasurer of the county or city in which such person resides, accompanied by the amount of license tax and current certificate of vaccination as required by this article. Statute
US - Marine Mammals - Taking of Marine Mammals Incidental to Commercial Fishing Operations 2000 WL 1214 (F.R.) FR Doc. 99-33632

This interim final rule allows the entry of yellowfin tuna into the United States under certain conditions from nations fully complying with the International Dolphin Conservation Program (IDCP). It also allows U.S. vessels to set their purse seines on dolphins in the ETP. The standard for the use of "dolphin-safe" labels for tuna products also is changed.

Administrative
OH - Veterinary - Chapter 4741. Veterinarians. R.C. § 4741.01 - 4741.99 OH ST § 4741.01 - 4741.99 These are the state's veterinary practice laws. Among the provisions include licensing requirements, laws concerning the state veterinary board, veterinary records laws, and the laws governing disciplinary actions for impaired or incompetent practitioners. Statute
MO - Carthage - Breed - Sec. 4-5.1. Pit bulldogs prohibited. CARTHAGE, MO., CODE § 4-5.1

In Carthage, Missouri, it is unlawful to keep, harbor, own or possess any pit bulldog as defined. An exception is made for pit bulldogs registered as of the effective day (Jan. 26, 1993), as long as the dog is properly confined or kept on a leash and wearing a muzzle. The owner must also take photographs of the dog for identification purposes. Any person violating the provisions may be fined up to $500. The dog may also be removed from the city.

Local Ordinance
LOUISVILLE & N. R. CO. v. WATSON 208 Ala. 319 (1922) 94 So. 551 (Ala., 1922)

On November 2, 1920, on a “moonlit night”, plaintiff was fox hunting by a railroad track when his dog was hit by the train. Plaintiff claimed that defendant’s employee negligently ran over his dog while acting within the scope of his duties as an operator of the train. The Alabama Supreme Court affirmed a jury award of $50, and held that it was proper for the plaintiff to show the excellent hunting qualities displayed by this dog to determine its market value.

Case

Pages