Results
| Title | Citation | Alternate Citation | Summary | Type | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| NH - Veterinary - Chapter 332-B. New Hampshire Veterinary Practice Act. | N.H. Rev. Stat. § 332-B:1 - 332-B:20 | NH ST § 332-B:1 - 332-B:20 | These are the state's veterinary practice laws. Among the provisions include licensing requirements, laws concerning the state veterinary board, veterinary records laws, and the laws governing disciplinary actions for impaired or incompetent practitioners. | Statute | ||||||
| Amburgey v. Sauder | 605 N.W.2d 84 (Mich. 1999) |
Plaintiff was bitten by a horse as she walked through a stable. The court determined that Plaintiff was a “participant” for the purposes of the Equine Activity Liability Act (EALA), and thus the Defendant stables owner was insulated from liability arising out of the unanticipated, abnormal behavior of the horse. |
Case | |||||||
| City of La Marque v. Braskey | 216 S.W.3d 861 (Tex. Ct. App. 2007) | 2007 WL 14481 (Tex. Ct. App.) (unpublished) |
A city's ordinance did not allow a kennel, defined as a place containing more than four dogs and cats, to be operated within 100 feet of a residence, school, or church. A woman kept as many as 100 cats at a time in a shelter within 100 feet of three homes, and she was criminally charged under the ordinance. The court found that the ordinance did not violate the plaintiff's constitutional rights because there was no right to use her property in any manner that she chose. |
Case | ||||||
| State v. LeVasseur | 613 P.2d 1328 (1980) |
The trial court convicted defendant of first degree theft after he freed dolphins from a university laboratory. The court affirmed the conviction on appeal. It reasoned that the choice of evils defense was unavailable to defendant because the definition of "another" under Hawaii statute clearly did not include dolphins. |
Case | |||||||
| Raymond v. Bujold | 199 A. 91 (N.H.,1938) |
A finder of a lost dog did not become the "keeper" of the dog when he tied it up and summoned the owner to retrieve it. The finder was therefore entitled to sue the owner for damage caused by the dog. |
Case | |||||||
| MS - Dog, police - § 41-59-35. Duration of EMT certificate; transport of injured police dog; | Miss. Code Ann. § 41-59-35 | MS ST § 41-59-35 | This law covers certification of emergency medical technicians. In 2018, the law was amended to allow an EMT, EMT-A, EMR, or Paramedic to transport a police dog injured in the line of duty to a veterinary clinic, hospital emergency department or similar facility if there are no persons requiring medical attention or transport at that time. Under this subsection, “police dog” means a dog owned or used by a law enforcement department or agency in the course of the department or agency's work, including a search and rescue dog, service dog, accelerant detection canine, or other dog that is in use by a county, municipal, or state law enforcement agency. | Statute | ||||||
| State v. Gilchrist | 418 P.3d 689 (Okla., 2017) | 2017 OK CR 25, 2017 WL 5196712 (Okla., 2017) | The Appellant State of Oklahoma appeals the Grant County District Court's granting of defendant's motion to quash counts 2-13 of Cruelty to Animals violation of 21 O.S.2011, § 1685. Defendant was charged with 13 counts of animal cruelty stemming from maltreatment of 13 dogs at his property. Evidence at the preliminary hearing showed that two of the dogs were chained to small, metal shelters, and 11 were individually penned, all in 100 degree heat. No dogs had adequate water and rotting carcasses were found within reach of the dogs. According to responding veterinarians, all dogs were extremely dehydrated and in need of immediate medical care and one dog had gone into shock (it later died). Most of the dogs were malnourished and poorly conditioned with parasite-infested wounds. At district court, defendant argued that he could only be charged with a single count of Cruelty to Animals because the dogs were found all in one location and had been abandoned for approximately the same time period. The district court acquiesced and granted defendant's motion to quash, finding no caselaw on point. On appeal, the Supreme Court found the district court's interpretation of 21 O.S.2011, § 1685 wrong as a matter of law. The section repeatedly use the phrase "any animal" to show that the intent to address acts of abuse against any particular animal. The Court observed that the state filed a count for each of the dogs at defendant's property because each dog needed to be separately fed and watered. "Gilchrist deprived all thirteen dogs of the food, water and shelter necessary to avoid the grotesque suffering observed at the scene." Thus, the Court found the district court abused its discretion in granting defendant's motion to quash. | Case | ||||||
| OR - Endangered Species - Chapter 496. Application, Administration and Enforcement of Wildlife Laws. | O. R. S. § 496.171 - 996; 498.026 | OR ST § 496.171 - 996; 498.026 | These Oregon statutes set out the definitions and rules relating to the Oregon endangered species laws. Specifically, Oregon law provides rules for listing based on the federal ESA list as well as the state criteria. Violation of the law constitutes a Class A misdemeanor with an enhanced felony provision for subsequent convictions involving certain species (i.e., taking of game fish with a total value of $200 or more or the taking of antelope, black bear, cougar, deer, elk, moose, mountain goat or mountain sheep in violation of the wildlife laws) within a ten-year period. | Statute | ||||||
| Derecho Animal Volume 1 Núm 1 |
|
Policy | ||||||||
| MO - Pet Shop - Animal Care and Facilities Licensing and Regulation (Chapter 273) | V.A.M.S. 273.325 - 359 | MO ST 273.325 - 359 | Under these Missouri statutes, a license is required to operate animal boarding facilities, pet shops, pounds, dealers and commercial breeders. The canine cruelty prevention act makes it the crime of canine cruelty if the person poses a substantial risk to the health and welfare of animals in the person's custody. A violation is a misdemeanor. | Statute |