Results
Displaying 41 - 50 of 6637
| Title | Citation | Alternate Citation | Agency Citation | Summary | Type |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| State v. Butler | 175 N.H. 444, 293 A.3d 191 (2022) | 2022 WL 4488304 (N.H. Sept. 28, 2022) | Defendant Kevin Butler was convicted of criminal negligence after he left his dog inside a parked vehicle for 45 minutes when the temperature was over 90 degrees outside. The charge came after a neighbor noticed a dog in the vehicle that was "scratching at the windows and the door" and appeared to be in distress. After calling the police, an animal control officer removed the animal from the unlocked car and transported the distressed dog to a local veterinary clinic. At trial, the defendant testified that he was out running errands on a "very hot" day, and asked his son to get the dog out of the car as Defendant's hands were full. An important phone call distracted him from following up on the dog's removal and only after the police knocked on his door did he realize the dog must still be in the car. On appeal here, Defendant contends that the evidence was insufficient to establish the mens rea of criminal negligence for both charges. The State must prove that a defendant “fail[ed] to become aware of a substantial and unjustifiable risk that the material element exists or will result from his conduct" and that this risk constitutes a gross deviation from conduct performed by a reasonable person. Here, the court found that the record supports the trial court's conclusion that the defendant failed to become aware of a substantial and unjustifiable risk that the dog would overheat in the car and that his failure to perceive this risk constituted a gross deviation from reasonable care. The temperature was high that day, the car was parked in direct sunlight with all the windows up, and the dog was left for around an hour. The fact that Defendant relied upon his 8-year-old son to remove the dog under these circumstances constituted a gross deviation from reasonable care. This was not "mere inattention" as Defendant claimed. The conviction was affirmed. | Case | |
| NH - Commercial breeders - art Agr 1704. Operating Standards Relative to Commercial Kennels | NH ADC Agr 1704.01 - 10 | N.H. Code Admin. R. Agr 1704.01 - 10 | These New Hampshire regulations address minimum standards at commercial animal facilities. The regulations cover general aspects (i.e., housing must be structurally sound and maintained in good repair) as well as more specific aspects related to indoor heating/cooling and ventilation requirements. The sizing and construction of primary enclosures and minimal feeding requirements are described. | Administrative | |
| People v. Baniqued | 101 Cal.Rptr.2d 835 (Cal.App.3 Dist.,2000). |
Defendant appealed from a judgment of the Superior Court of Sacramento County, California, ordering their conviction for cockfighting in violations of animal cruelty statutes. The court held that roosters and other birds fall within the statutory definition of "every dumb creature" and thus qualify as an "animal" for purposes of the animal cruelty statutes. |
Case | ||
| VA - Rabies - § 3.2-6522. Rabid animals | Va. Code Ann. § 3.2-6522 | VA ST § 3.2-6522 | This Virginia statute provides that, when there is sufficient reason to believe that a rabid animal is at large, the governing body of any county, city or town shall have the power to pass an emergency ordinance that shall become effective immediately upon passage, requiring owners of all dogs and cats therein to keep the same confined. It further outlines the steps that must be undertaken pursuant to such an ordinance, including proof of vaccination from pet owners, procedures for impounding and euthanizing suspected infected animals, and procedures relating to an animal biting a person. | Statute | |
| OH - Cemeteries, Pet - Chapter 961. Pet Cemeteries | R.C. § 961.01 - 99 | OH ST § 961.01 - 99 | This Ohio chapter concerns the establishment of "pet cemeteries." The owner of land used for a pet cemetery must file a declaration in the county recorder's office that the land is to be used only for such purposes. Unless the deed restriction is removed, no person shall use land restricted as provided in this section for any purpose other than for pet cemetery purposes. The pet cemetery must be at least three acres in size and the owner must comply with deposit requirements described under the "endowment care fund." Violation of the provisions relating to& the land use restriction (961.02), the size of the pet cemetery (961.03), or the endowment care fund requirement (961.04) results in a fine of up to $5,000 or imprisonment for up to one year, or both. | Statute | |
| ME - Police Animal - § 164-B. Immunity from civil liability for assistance given to law enforcement dogs, search and rescue | 14 M.R.S.A. § 164-B | This Maine law gives immunity from damages to an emergency medical services person, a security services dog handler or a law enforcement officer who voluntarily, without the expectation of monetary or other compensation, renders first aid, emergency treatment or rescue assistance to a law enforcement dog, search and rescue dog or service dog that is unconscious, ill, injured or in need of rescue assistance unless it is established that the injury or the death was caused willfully, wantonly or recklessly or by gross negligence on the part of the emergency medical services person, security services dog handler or law enforcement officer. | Statute | ||
| Griffith v. State | Griffith v. State, 43 S.E. 251 (G.A. 1903). |
Defendant was indicted under Ga. Penal Code § 703, which prohibited one from instigating, engaging in, or doing anything furtherance of the an act or cruelty to a domestic animal. Ga. Penal Code § 705 defined cruelty as every willful act, omission or neglect, whereby unjustifiable physical pain, suffering, or death is caused or permitted. The court affirmed the conviction, finding that the law provided that a domestic animal, such as a horse, should be sheltered and cared for by his owner. The jury was authorized to find that the defendant willfully abandoned the horse by turning the horse out to the elements, and failing to feed, shelter, or care for the animal. Such conduct was "willful." The court affirmed the judgment of the superior court on the jury's conviction of defendant for cruelty to animals. |
Case | ||
| TN - Trusts - § 35-15-408. Trust for care of animal. | T. C. A. § 35-15-408 | TN ST § 35-15-408 | This Tennessee trust law, amended in 2007, provides that a trust may be created to provide for the care of an animal alive during the settlor's lifetime. The trust terminates upon the death of the animal or, if the trust was created to provide for the care of more than one (1) animal alive during the settlor's lifetime, upon the death of the last surviving animal. The trust may not be enforced for more than 90 years. | Statute | |
| NH - Agricultural Animals - Chapter 435. Animal Care, Breeding and Feed | N.H. Rev. Stat. § 435:1 - 435:41 | NH ST § 435:1 - 435:41 | This New Hampshire chapter concerns the registration of breeding stallions and the proper care, feeding, and shelter of horses. The chapter also includes the New Hampshire Commercial Feed Law of 1971. Within this law are prohibitions on the misbranding or adulteration of commercial feed. The chapter additionally prohibits the feeding of raw garbage to swine. | Statute | |
| Crow Indian Tribe v. United States | 965 F.3d 662 (9th Cir. 2020) | Several Indian tribes, environmental organizations, and animal-welfare groups filed suits claiming that Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) violated Endangered Species Act (ESA) and Administrative Procedure Act (APA) by issuing final rule “delisting” or removing grizzly bear population in Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem from threatened species list. The distinct population segment of the Yellowstone grizzly bear population has been so successful under the ESA that the FWS has been trying to delist it for almost 15 years, according to the court. This specific case was triggered by a 2017 D.C. Circuit case (Humane Society v. Zinke) that requires the FWS to address the impact that removing a DPS from protection under the ESA would have on the remaining listed species. At the time that ruling was issued, the FWS had already published a 2017 Rule that sought to delist the grizzly bear Yellowstone DPS. This then resulted in cross motions for summary judgment in district court. The district court granted summary judgment for the plaintiffs and vacated the 2017 rule, remanding it to the FWS. This remand resulted in a second delisting rule by FWS that was again vacated and remanded by the district court, demanding consideration of several discrete issues by FWS. The FWS now appeals that remand for consideration that require the study of the effect of the delisting on the remaining, still listed, grizzly population in the coterminous 48 states, as well as further consideration of the threat of delisting to long term genetic diversity of the Yellowstone grizzly. In addition, states in the region of the DPS (Idaho, Montana, and Wyoming) as well as some private hunting and farming organizations have intervened on the government's behalf. On appeal, the Court of Appeals first found that it had authority to review the district court order and that the intervenors had standing to pursue an appeal. As to the order by the district court that the FWS needs to conduct a "comprehensive review" of the impact of delisting on the remnant grizzly population, the appellate court vacated that portion of the order using the phrase "comprehensive review." Instead, it remanded to the lower court to order a "further examination" on the delisting's effects. The court also agreed with the district court that FWS' 2017 Rule was arbitrary and capricious where it had no concrete, enforceable mechanism to ensure the long-term genetic viability of the Yellowstone DPS. Finally, the Court of Appeals agreed with the district court order to mandate a commitment to recalibration (changes in methodology to measure the Yellowstone grizzly bear population) in the rule since that is required by the ESA. The Court affirmed the district court’s remand order, with the exception of the order requiring the FWS to conduct a “comprehensive review” of the remnant grizzly population. | Case |