Results
Displaying 31 - 40 of 6822
| Title | Citation | Alternate Citation | Agency Citation | Summary | Type |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| CA - Fur - § 598a. Killing dog or cat with intent of selling or giving away pelt; possession, sale or importation of pelt with i | West's Ann. Cal. Penal Code § 598a | CA PENAL § 598a | This statute makes it a misdemeanor to kill any dog or cat with the sole intent of selling or giving away the pelt of the animal. It also makes it a misdemeanor to possess, import into California, sell, buy, give away or accept any pelt of a dog or cat with the sole intent of selling or giving away the pelt of the dog or cat. | Statute | |
| Savage v. Prator | 921 So.2d 51 (La., 2006) | 2006 WL 136307 (La. 2006), |
Two Louisiana "game clubs" filed an action for declaratory judgment and injunctive relief against parish commission and parish sheriff's office after being informed by the sheriff that an existing parish ordinance prohibiting cockfighting would be enforced. The clubs contended that the ordinance was violative of the police power reserved explicitly to the state (the state anti-cruelty provision is silent with regard to cockfighting). The First Judicial District Court, Parish of Caddo granted the clubs' request for a preliminary injunction. The Supreme Court reversed the injunction and remanded the matter, finding that the parish ordinance prohibiting cockfighting did not violate general law or infringe upon State's police powers in violation of Constitution. |
Case | |
| MI - Hunting - Chapter 324. Natural Resources and Environmental Protection Act. | M.C.L.A. 324.40112 | MI ST 324.40112 | This law makes it a crime to interfere or obstruct someone in the lawful taking of animals. | Statute | |
| Montana - Health - 32.3.213. SPECIAL REQUIREMENTS FOR DOGS AND CATS | MT ADC 32.3.213 | Mont.Admin.R. 32.3.213 | This Montana regulation states that dogs and cats may enter the state of Montana provided they are accompanied by an official health certificate of the state of origin issued by an accredited veterinarian and officially vaccinated by a licensed veterinarian against rabies in accordance with procedures recommended in the latest version of the U.S. Public Health Compendium for rabies vaccine. Rabies vaccination requirements do not apply to puppies and kittens under three months of age. | Administrative | |
| Baughman v. City of Elkhart, TX | Slip copy, 2018 WL 1510678 (E.D. Tex., 2018) | Plaintiff Tammy Baughman filed a complaint on May 31, 2017 seeking relief pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging a violation of her Fourteenth amendment rights; the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), alleging that she was discriminated against; the Fair Housing Amendments Act (FHAA), alleging a failure to make reasonable accommodations; and 42 U.S.C. § 3613. Plaintiff asserts that she is disabled due to a failed back surgery. She also has fibromyalgia, depression, and other health issues. Plaintiff has a seven pound ring tail lemur that she claims is an emotional support animal that improves her quality of life. Plaintiff's lemur bit a mail carrier on December 5, 2012 which left lacerations on the carrier's hand and wrist. Plaintiff then moved to Elkhart, Texas in December 2014 where her lemur bit another person on June 25, 2015. In both instances the lemur was quarantined for 30 days and then returned to Plaintiff. The City of Elkhart enacted an ordinance on October 5, 2015 that bans all non-human primates from the city. Plaintiff claims she requested an accommodation form the City to keep her lemur as an emotional support animal, but her request was denied. The defendants, which include the mayor and city council members, claim the plaintiff never requested an accommodation. Plaintiff further alleges that the defendants "showed deliberate indifference in refusing to give [her] a hearing and defend her lemur,' which violates the FHAA and ADA. On February 15, 2018, Defendants filed a Motion for Summary Judgment seeking a dismissal of all of Plaintiff's claims. Defendants claim that Plaintiff's lemur was involved in two documented attacks in Houston County, Texas and a third in Elkhart. Defendants assert that Plaintiff runs a retail resale shop out of her home and that in the third attack on June 25, 2015, the lemur jumped on a customer in plaintiff's store. Defendants assert that the ordinance was enacted as a legitimate exercise of the City's legislative power and police power. The District court concluded that the defendants are entitled to absolute judicial immunity for their conduct because the act of voting in favor of an ordinance is an undeniable legislative action. As for Plaintiff's 1983 claim, the District Court concluded that she had not shown a genuine issue of material fact concerning whether her due process rights were violated nor does she have a basis for a procedural due process claim. The ordinance is rationally related to the City's legitimate interest in the safety and welfare of its citizens. The ordinance does not violate the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. As for Plaintiff's ADA claim, the District Court concluded that the Plaintiff had not shown that the reasonable accommodation that she requested - an exemption from the animal control ordinance - did not place an undue burden on the City of Elkhart. No facts were provided by the Plaintiff that would show that her interest in keeping her lemur outweighs the interest of the City in protecting its citizens. As for Plaintiff's ADA claim, in order to succeed on an ADA claim, there must be some evidence that set the animal apart from an ordinary pet. The Plaintiff failed to show any evidence that her lemur is specifically trained to perform tasks that help her in her daily life. The District Court held that the Defendant's motion for summary judgment is granted and the Plaintiff's complaint is dismissed with prejudice. | Case | ||
| Sentencia C-666, 2010 | Sentencia C-666/10 | The Constitutional Court decided on an unconstitutionality claim against Article 7 of the Statute of Animal Protection Ley 84 of 1989 that corresponds to the exceptions to the duty of animal protection. This decision established the conditions that must be met for the exceptions of Article 7 to apply. Put in different words, through Decision C-666, the court limits the scope of the legality of bullfighting, establishing certain requirements. In its holding, the Court stated that the seven practices in Article 7 would not violate the Constitution, so long as they were done within the following parameters: (1) As long as it is understood that these animals should, in all cases, obtain special protection against suffering and pain during the execution of these activities. This exception allows the continuation of cultural expressions and entertainment with animals, so long as exceptionally cruel acts against these animals are eliminated, or lessened in the future in a process of adaptation between cultural expressions and duties of protection to animals; (2) These practices can only take place in municipalities and districts in which the practices are themselves a manifestation of a regular, periodic and uninterrupted tradition, and therefore their execution responds to a certain regularity; (3) These practices can only take place during occasions in which they have commonly taken place and in the municipalities and districts where they are authorized; (4) These are the only practices that are authorized to be part of the exception in Article 7 to the constitutional duty to protect animals; and (5) Municipal authorities cannot economically support the construction of installations for the exclusive execution of the activities listed in Article 7 with public funds. | Case | ||
| US - Patent - Patentability of Inventions and Grant of Patents | 35 USC 103 | The Patent Act governs the law of patents in the United States. Currently, the Patent and Trademark Office functions to issue patents, for which genetically engineered animal species may legally be patented in the United States. | Statute | ||
| AR - Trusts - Trust for care of animal. | A.C.A. § 28-73-408 | AR ST § 28-73-408 | This statute represents Arkansas' pet trust law. The law 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 animal alive during the settlor's lifetime, upon the death of the last surviving animal. | Statute | |
| Taylor v. Howren | 606 S.E.2d 74 (Ga.App., 2004) | 2004 WL 2283815, 270 Ga.App. 226 |
A family friend wanted to ride a horse and the horse owner told him it was rideable, despite knowing the horse was not fully trained yet. The family friend sued after being kicked in the eye, knocked unconscious and paralyzed by the horse. The Court of Appeals reversed the trial court's entry of summary judgment for the horse owner on the basis that there was still a genuine issue of material fact as to the horse owner's immunity under the Equine Activities Act. |
Case | |
| KS - Hunting - Unlawful Acts. 32-1014. Obstruction or impeding of lawful activities | K. S. A. 32-1014 | KS ST 32-1014 | This Kansas law reflects the state's hunter harassment provision. Under the law, no person shall willfully obstruct or impede the participation of any individual in the lawful activity of hunting, furharvesting or fishing. The law does not apply to law enforcement and does not limit the right of landowners or their tenants to limit trespass. | Statute |