Results
Displaying 81 - 90 of 6637
| Title | Citation | Alternate Citation | Summary | Type |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Colombia - Exotic animals - Ley 1638, 2013 | Ley 1638 de 2013 | Ley 1638, prohibits the use of wild animals, native or exotic as part of shows in circuses in the entire country. To accomplish this goal, Ley 1638 gave circuses a two-year deadline to make the transition and re-purpose their shows without the use of wild animals. After the two year-period, national and local authorities would not be able to issue any licenses allowing the use of wild animals for this kind of shows. This law does not include the use of domestic animals. | Statute | |
| OR - Exotic Pets - Chapter 609. Animal Control; Exotic Animals; Dealers. | O. R. S. § 609.205 - 355 | OR ST § 609.205 - 355 | These Oregon laws concern the regulation of exotic pets in the state. An "exotic animal" for purposes of the section means a member of the family Felidae not indigenous to Oregon (except the domestic cat), any nonhuman primate, any nonwolf member of the family Canidae not indigenous to Oregon (except the domestic dog), any bear except the black bear, and any member of the order Crocodylia. A person may not keep an exotic animal in this state unless the person possesses a valid State Department of Agriculture permit for that animal issued prior to the effective date of this 2009 Act. | Statute |
| Slavin v. United States | 2005 WL 742707 (8th Cir. 2005) |
An Arkansas woman who raises gamefowl brought an action challenging the constitutionality of the Animal Welfare Act which prohibits the interstate transportation of birds for the purposes of fighting. The trial court dismissed the woman's claim and the Court of Appeals affirmed holding the statute is not vague. |
Case | |
| MO - Ordinances - Chapter 77. Third Class Cities | V. A. M. S. 77.590, 79.110, 80.090, 82.300 | MO ST 77.590, 79.110, 80.090, 82.300 | This set of statutes authorizes municipal governments to regulate animals and animal-related nuisances. | Statute |
| Maloney v. State | 1975 OK CR 22 (Ok. App. 1975) | 1975 OK CR 22 (Ok. App. 1975) |
The State charged defendant with maliciously placing a dog in a pit with another dog and encouraging the dogs to fight, injure, maim, or kill one another. The trial court convicted defendant of cruelty to animals pursuant to Okla. Stat. tit. 21, § 1685 (1971) and fined defendant. Defendant appealed. On appeal, the court held that Okla. Stat. tit. 21, § 1682 (1971) was constitutional as applied to the case but reversed and remanded the case because the court determined that the defendant had been improperly convicted under the anti-cruelty statute rather than the dogfighting statute. |
Case |
| NE - Ferret - § 37-526. Ferrets; use or possession prohibited, when; violation; penalty | Neb.Rev.St. § 37-526 | NE ST § 37-526 | This Nebraska statute states that it shall be unlawful to hunt rabbits, squirrels, or any fur-bearing animal with or by the aid of a ferret. It is also unlawful to have a ferret in one's possession or control in a field or forest or in any vehicle going to or from hunting territory. Any person violating this section shall be guilty of a Class III misdemeanor and shall be fined at least fifty dollars. | Statute |
| AR - Facility Dog - § 16-43-1002. Certified facility dogs for child witnesses | Ark. Code Ann. § 16-43-1002 | A.C.A. § 16-43-1002 | This statute deals with the use of certified facility dogs for child witnesses and vulnerable witnesses (a person testifying in a criminal hearing or trial who has an intellectual and developmental disability or has a significant impairment in cognitive functioning acquired as a direct consequence of a brain injury or resulting from a progressively deteriorating neurological condition, including without limitation Alzheimer's disease or dementia). In order to qualify as a certified facility dog, a dog must graduate from an assistance dog organization after receiving at least 2 years of training and passing the same public service access test as a service dog. | Statute |
| NM - Dog Bite - Chapter 77. Animals and Livestock. | N. M. S. A. 1978, § 77-1-6 | NM ST § 77-1-6 | This short New Mexico statute provides that state health department shall prescribe regulations for the reporting of animal bites, confinement and disposition of rabies-suspect animals, rabies quarantine and the disposition of dogs and cats exposed to rabies, in the interest of public health and safety. | Statute |
| ME - Equine Liability - Chapter 743. Equine Activities | 7 M. R. S. A. § 4101 - 4104-A | ME ST T. 7 § 4101 - 4104-A | This act stipulates that an equine sponsor, equine professional, or any other person engaged in an equine activity, is immune from liability for the death or injury of a participant, as well as property damage, which resulted from the inherent risks of equine activities. However, there are exceptions to this rule: a person will be held liable for injuries of an equine activity participant if he or she displays a willful and wanton or intentional disregard for the safety of the participant and if he or she fails to make reasonable and prudent efforts in ensuring the safety of the participant. In addition, a person will also be held liable for the injury of an equine activity participant if he or she is injured on the land or at a facility due to a dangerous latent condition of which was known to the equine sponsor, professional or other person. | Statute |
| MONICA NEWMAN, individually and on behalf of all similarly situated; MATTHEW KEITH DOUGLAS, individually and on behalf of all similarly situated; and RUBY JUDINE MALMAN, individually and on behalf of all similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. CITY OF PAYETTE, | 2015 WL 6159471 (D. Idaho, 2015) | District Court ruled City of Payette's pit bull ordinance's procedural aspects were unconstitutional, finding that the lack of hearing provisions for a dog that was impounded due to an attack or bite violated procedural due process. The court also found that forcing the dog owner to bear the burden of proving his or her dog's innocence violated due process. The court, however, found no constitutional infirmity with the notice procedure employed by Payette's pit bull ordinance, provided Payette adhered to Idaho Code § 25-2804. The court ordered Plaintiff Douglas’ Motion for Partial Summary Judgment to be granted in part and denied in part; the claims asserted against the city of Payette by Plaintiffs Monica Newman and Ruby Judine Malman to be dismissed without prejudice; and all claims asserted by Plaintiffs against the city of Fruitland to be dismissed without prejudice. | Case |