Results
| Title | Citation | Alternate Citation | Summary | Type | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Animal Law Index Volume 8 |
Animal Law, Volume 8 (2001)
|
Policy | |||||||||
| Viilo v. Eyre | 547 F.3d 707 (C.A.7 (Wis.),2008) | 2008 WL 4694917 |
Virginia Viilo sued the City of Milwaukee and two of its police officers under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 after an officer shot and killed her dog 'Bubba.' The district court denied the defendants' motion for summary judgment on the basis of qualified immunity and the defendants took an interlocutory appeal challenging this denial. The court found that defendants' interjection of factual disputes deprived the court of jurisdiction. The court further held that it is a violation of the Fourth Amendment for a police officer to shoot and kill a companion dog that poses no imminent danger while the dog’s owner is present and trying to assert custody over her pet. |
Case | |||||||
| US - AWA - 2007 Public Law110-22 | 2007 PL 110-22 | 121 STAT 88 | The Animal Fighting Prohibition Enforcement Act of 2007 was signed into law on May 3, 2007. The law upgrades current penalties by creating felony-level jail time (up to 3 years) for violations of the federal animal fighting law, and it also prohibits interstate and foreign commerce of cockfighting weapons (e.g., knife, gaff, etc.). | Statute | |||||||
| Garza v. State | 2007 Tex. App. LEXIS 8953 | Carrollton, Texas municipal code prohibited the keeping of more than three pets on property within the city limits. Yvette Garza, a member of an animal rescue organization, challenged the determination that she had violated the city code by keeping more than three dogs. She argued that the code was unconstitutionally vague and that her actions were necessary. The court held that although the term "keep" was not defined in the statute, a person of ordinary intelligence would understand the law because "keep" has a common sense meaning. Garza also failed to produce evidence proving when the scheduled euthanasia of the dogs was going to occur, she therefore failed to establish the elements of her necessity defense. | Case | ||||||||
| State v. Neal | State v. Neal, 27 S.E. 81 (N.C. 1897) |
The defendant was convicted under North Carolina's cruelty to animal statute for the killing of his neighbor's chickens. The defendant appealed to the Supreme Court because the trial court refused to give some of his instructions to the jury. The Supreme Court that the lower court was correct and affirmed. |
Case | ||||||||
| ND - Equine Activity - Chapter 53-10. Equine Activity Sponsor or Professional. | NDCC 53-10-01; NDCC 53-10-02 | ND ST 53-10-01; ND ST 53-10-02 | This North Dakota statute provides that an equine activity sponsor or an equine professional is not liable for an injury to or the death of a participant engaged in an equine activity and no participant may maintain an action against an equine activity sponsor or professional. Statutory definitions are provided, including "participant," "equine activity," and who is considered an "equine sponsor" or "equine professional." Liability is not limited by this statute where the equine professional knowingly provided faulty tack or equipment, failed to make reasonable and prudent efforts to determine the ability of the participant to engage safely in the equine activity, owns or otherwise is in lawful possession of the land or facilities upon which the participant sustained injuries because of a known, dangerous latent condition, or if he or she commits an act or omission that constitutes willful or wanton disregard for the safety of the participant or intentionally injures the participant. | Statute | |||||||
| Derecho Animal Volume 2 Núm 1 |
|
Policy | |||||||||
| KY - Disaster - Chapter 39A. Statewide Emergency Management Programs | KRS § 39A.350 - 366 | KY ST § 39A.350 - 366 | Good Samaritan Act applies to registered volunteer health practitioners that provide health services for a host entity during an emergency. Health services include treatment, care, advice, guidance, and provision of supplies related to the health or death of an animal or to animal populations. | Statute | |||||||
| Scotland - Animal Welfare - Animals and Wildlife (Penalties, Protections and Powers) (Scotland) Act 2020 | 2020 asp 14 | This Act increased the maximum penalty for the most serious animal welfare and wildlife crimes in Scotland to five years imprisonment and unlimited fines. This includes penalties under the The Animal Health and Welfare (Scotland) Act 2006, the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981, The Protection of Badgers Act 1992, the Wild Mammals (Protection) Act 1996, the Deer (Scotland) Act 1996, and other animal welfare related legislation in Scotland. These include the offence of unnecessary suffering and animal fighting. The Act also incorporated 'Finn's Law' which will prevent those that harm service animals in the course of their duties from claiming that they did so in self-defence. The Act also creates new powers (by way of future secondary legislation) to impose fixed penalty notices for less serious offences. Further, the Act restricts licensing for the killing of seals, and provides mountain hares with general protection from killing. | Statute | ||||||||
| EU - Farming - COUNCIL DIRECTIVE 93/119/EC on the protection of animals at the | COUNCIL DIRECTIVE 93/119/EC |
This directive reflects the EU's concern for a need to establish common minimum standards for the protection of animals at the time of slaughter or killing in order to ensure rational development of production and to facilitate the completion of the internal market in animals and animal products. The directive also states that at the time of slaughter or killing animals should be spared any avoidable pain or suffering. |
Statute |