Results
Displaying 6571 - 6580 of 6822
| Title | Citation | Alternate Citation | Summary | Type |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Night monkeys used in malaria research in a small, soiled, and rusty cage | Slideshow Images | |||
| Vill. of Orion v. Hardi | 2022 IL App (4th) 220186 | 2022 WL 17256761 (Ill.App. 4 Dist., 2022) | The plaintiff, the Village of Orion (Village), sued defendants, Patricia A. Hardi and Michael Larson, to enjoin them from keeping more than three cats in violation of a Village ordinance. After a dismissal and amended complaint by the Village, the trial court granted defendants' amended motion to dismiss, finding that the Village had previously voted to allow defendants to keep more than three cats. Here, the Village appeals this decision. By way of background, the defendants lived together in the Village since 1998, and one defendant served as the animal control officer for about 15 years. In 2013, the Village enacted an ordinance making it unlawful to keep more than three dogs or cats over the age of six months (except for licensed kennels or veterinarian clinics). At a Village board meeting in 2014, the minutes revealed that members of the board agreed to allow defendants to keep the dogs ad cats to live out their natural lifetimes. However, in 2017, the Board served a "notice to abate nuisance" for keeping more than three cats or dogs. This was followed by a complaint filed by the Village against defendants. In 2018, defendants filed a motion to dismiss alleging the three-cat limit was arbitrary and was "superseded" by a criminal action where one defendant pleaded guilty to animal cruelty, but was allowed to keep 10 cats. The trial court's order found that the Board's language at the 2014 meeting revealed "unambiguous" language that defendants could keep the cats in their possession. After remand, the Village filed its second amended complaint in 2022 and defendants against filed a motion to dismiss. After a hearing with testimony from Board members and others, the trial court found there was a motion to allow the keeping of the excess cats and this negated the ability of the Village to proceed with an ordinance violation. On appeal here, this court finds the 2014 board minutes are insufficient to support a motion to dismiss. The submission of the board minutes together with and a defense witness, followed by the Village's presentation of another board member's testimony to refute that, amounted to the court "improperly allow[ing] the parties to conduct a mini-trial on the veracity of the essential allegations of the complaint." The motion was used to attack the factual basis of the claim. Thus, the trial court's order granting the dismissal was reversed and the matter was remanded. | Case |
| Virginia General Laws 1893: Cruelty to Animals | Va. Code Ann. §§ 4554-4567 (Michie 1913) | A collection of Virginia laws from 1893 concerning the punishment and enforcement against cruelty to animals. The laws cover cruelty to animals, power of agents of the court to search for cruelty to animals, and the punishment for shooting pigeons among other things. | Statute | |
| Sample Table to Copy | Topic Table | |||
| South Africa - Protected Areas Act - National Environmental Management | No. 57 of 2003: National Environmental Management: Protected Areas Act, 2003. | This act is to provide for the protection and conservation of ecologically viable areas representative of South Africa’s biological diversity and its natural landscapes and seascapes; for the establishment of a national register of all national, provincial and local protected areas; for the management of those areas in accordance with national norms and standards; for intergovernmental co-operation and public consultation in matters concerning protected areas; and for matters in connection therewith. | Statute | |
| Commonwealth v. Russo | 218 N.E.3d 116, review granted, 493 Mass. 1104, 223 N.E.3d 741 (2023) | 103 Mass.App.Ct. 319, 2023 WL 5962931 (Mass. App. Ct. Sept. 14, 2023) | This is a case regarding an animal cruelty charge brought against defendant, the owner of an elderly, terminally ill dog. First, defendant’s family brought the fourteen-year-old dog to an animal hospital. The staff at the hospital examined the dog, which had a large mass on his side, and recommended that the dog have surgery to remove the mass. Defendant did not authorize the surgery, and instead took the dog home. Three weeks later, defendant brought the dog back to the animal hospital, where the staff noticed that his condition had worsened significantly. At this point, the veterinarian recommended humane euthanasia to end the dog’s suffering, but defendant declined and requested the surgery. The veterinarian declined, claiming the dog would not survive the surgery, and defendant took the dog home saying they would have another vet euthanize the dog. The veterinarian reported defendant to the Animal Rescue League of Boston, who conducted a welfare check on the dog and found it in very poor health. When the Animal Rescue League asked defendant to euthanize the dog or get him medical attention, defendant declined and insisted the dog would die at home. Defendants were charged with violating the animal cruelty statute, defendant’s motion to dismiss the complaint was granted, and this appeal followed. The question on appeal is whether defendant’s conduct in refusing to euthanize the dog constitutes animal cruelty under the statute. The Commonwealth argues that the animal cruelty statute covers the conduct of one who has charge of an animal but, rather than inflicting the harm directly, “authorizes or permits” the animal “to be subjected to” harm, and that keeping the dog in a state of suffering rather than euthanizing the dog fits this definition. However, after examining case law, the court could not find a case in which a person's failure to euthanize an animal was interpreted as “subjecting” an animal to harm, and did not want to extend the statute that far. The court affirmed the holding of the lower court. | Case |
| IN - Animal Sacrifice - THE PUDUCHERRY ANIMALS AND BIRDS SACRIFICES PROHIBITION ACT, 1965 | 8 of 1965 | This law, specific to the Union Territory of Puducherry (formerly known as Pondicherry), prohibits animal sacrifice within the precincts of temples. Persons shall not perform, officiate at, or participate in animal sacrifice. | Statute | |
| Lee v. Cook |
Amicus Curae brief on why suit for wrongful death of a dog can include emotional damages. |
Pleading | ||
| Captive Wildlife Issues | Policy | |||
| DE - Newark - Chapter 5: Animals (Article II: Horses) | The Code of the City of Newark, 1970 §§ 6.12.010 - 6.12.100 5-19 to 5-21 |
In Newark, Delaware, a person is prohibited from riding, driving, or leading a horse on the city's sidewalks, but may ride a horse on a city street's bicycle path. Additionally, a person is prohibited from riding, driving, or leading a horse in a reckless, disorderly, or careless manner through or over any of the streets or private property in the city. Penalties for violating these provisions are provided. |
Local Ordinance |