Results
| Title | Citation | Alternate Citation | Summary | Type |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| WI - Somerset - Breed - Sec. 7-1-9. Wild, exotic and dangerous animals; pit bull dogs. | SOMERSET, WI., CODE OF ORDINANCES § 7-1-9 (2000) |
It is unlawful to keep, harbor, own or possess any pit bull dog in Somerset Wisconsin, with exceptions for dogs registered prior to the effective date of the pit bull ban. Such dogs are subject to certain requirements, such as proper confinement or the use of a leash and muzzle, posting “Beware of Dog” signs, and keeping $50,000 liability insurance. Puppies born to such dogs must be removed from the city after 6 weeks. |
Local Ordinance | |
| Song v Coddington | (2003) 59 NSWLR 180 | [2003] NSWSC 1196 |
The appellant was charged and convicted of being a person in charge and authorising the carriage of a number of goats in cages which did not allow those goats to stand upright. The appellant was a veterinary doctor employed by the Australian Quarantine Inspection Service and authorised under the Export Control (Animals) Orders 1987 to certify animals for export. On appeal, it was determined that for the purposes of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (General) Regulation 1996, the appellant was not a person in charge of the goats. |
Case |
| Animal Legal Def. Fund v. Olympic Game Farm, Inc. | --- F.Supp.3d ----, 2019 WL 2191876 (W.D. Wash. May 21, 2019) | This case has to do with the mistreatment and unsafe captivity of numerous animals kept at a roadside zoo in Sequim, Washington called Olympic Game Farm (OGF). The Animal Legal Defense Fund (ALDF) alleged that OGF’s failure to abide by the Federal Endangered Species Act, as well as alleged violations of Washington State animal cruelty laws created a public nuisance. OGF admitted one of the allegations, specifically, that they are not accredited but possess or display Roosevelt Elk. That was an admitted violation of Washington law which makes it unlawful for a non-accredited facility to possess such a species. That single admission supported ALDF’s public nuisance claim in addition to all of the other alleged state violations. The court stated that ALDF met the "low bar" of standing in a public nuisance context. Accordingly, OGF’s Motion to Dismiss was denied. | Case | |
| T. , J. A. s/ infracción Ley 14.346 | Id SAIJ: FA12340061 | The Supreme Court upheld the decision of the lower court that sentenced the Defendant to eleven months of imprisonment after finding him criminally responsible for acts of cruelty in violation of Article 1 of Ley 14.346 against a stray dog. The Defendant was found guilty of sexually abusing a dog, who he forced into his premises. The dog’s genital area was sheared and she had serious injuries, which the veterinarian concluded were clear signs of penetration. The Supreme Court referred to the Chamber of Appeals on Criminal Matters of Parana "B.J.L. s/ infracción a la Ley 14.346", of October 1, 2003, where the referred court stated that “the norms of Ley 14.346 protect animals against acts of cruelty and mistreatment, is not based on mercy, but on the legal recognition of a framework of rights for other species that must be preserved, not only from predation, but also from treatment that is incompatible with the minimum rationality." Further, "the definition of ‘person’ also includes in our pluralistic and anonymous societies a rational way of contact with animals that excludes cruel or degrading treatment." | Case | |
| TX - Assistance animals - Assistance Animal/Guide Dog Laws | V. T. C. A., Government Code § 661.910; V. T. C. A., Human Resources Code § 121.002 - 009; V. T. C. A., Penal Code § 42.091; V.T.C.A., Penal Code § 38.151; V. T. C. A., Transportation Code § 552.008 - 010; V. T. C. A., Health & Safety Code§ 437.023; | TX GOVT § 661.910; TX HUM RES § 121.002 - 008; TX PENAL § 38.151; TX TRANSP § 552.008 - .10; TX HEALTH & S § 437.023; TX OCC § 2402.112 | The following statutes comprise the state's relevant assistance animal and guide dog laws. | Statute |
| AL - Mobile - Chapter 7: Animal and Fowl (Article VI - Horse Drawn Carriages) | Mobile, Alabama, Code of Ordinances §§ 7-131 to 7-191. |
In Mobile, Alabama, animal-drawn passenger vehicles are restricted to horse drawn carriages. The following ordinances provide the restrictions and requirements placed upon the operations of these carriages within the city.
|
Local Ordinance | |
| State v. Reber | 171 P.3d 406 (Utah 2007) | 2007 WL 1189637 (Utah), 2007 UT 36 |
In this Utah case, the State sought review of the court of appeals' decision vacating the convictions of defendants. Reber was convicted of aiding or assisting in the wanton destruction of protected wildlife in violation of state law for killing a mule deer without a license or permit. On appeal, defendant contended that the state had no jurisdiction because he was an Indian hunting in Indian country. However, the court held that the State has jurisdiction over these defendants because the State has jurisdiction over crimes committed in Indian country when a non-Indian commits a victimless crime. Defendants are not Indians, as that term has been defined by federal law, and the crimes in these cases were victimless. |
Case |
| AR - Racing - Arkansas Greyhound Racing Law | A.C.A. §§ 23-111-101 to 23-111-518 | AR ST §§ 23-111-101 to 23-111-518 | This Act gives the Arkansas Racing Commission sole jurisdiction over the business and the sport of greyhound racing. Greyhound racing may only be conducted in the State of Arkansas by a franchise that is approved by the Arkansas Racing Commission. A franchise must be a corporation organized under the state of Arkansas. A franchise may not be a individual, partnerships, associations, or trusts. A franchise may not be granted by the Commission until it is authorized by a majority of the qualified electors within the county in which the franchise intends to operate. The voters will be able to choose whether to allow or reject the Racing Commission's grant to the franchise to conduct greyhound racing. Each county is only allowed to have one franchise conducting greyhound racing. | Statute |
| CT - Cruelty - § 54-86n. Appointment of advocate in proceeding re the welfare or custody of a cat or dog. | C.G.S.A. § 54-86n | CT ST § 54-86n | This 2016 law states that, in a cruelty or welfare proceedings, the court may order, upon its own initiative or upon request of a party or counsel for a party, that a separate advocate be appointed to represent the interests of justice. That advocate can monitor the case and supply the court with information about the welfare of the cat or dog. The Department of Agriculture shall maintain a list of attorneys with knowledge of animal issues and the legal system and a list of law schools that have students, or anticipate having students, with an interest in animal issues and the legal system. Such attorneys and law students shall be eligible to serve on a voluntary basis as advocates under this section. | Statute |