Results
| Title | Citation | Alternate Citation | Summary | Type |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| US - AWA - Animal Welfare Act | 7 USC §§ 2131 - 2160; 18 USC § 49 | 7 USCA §§ 2131 - 2160;18 USCA § 49 | The AWA is, in the main, a regulatory law that seeks to control who may possess or sell certain animals and the living conditions (for non-agricultural, domestic animals) under which the animals must be kept. The law provides for criminal penalties, civil penalties and revocation of permits for violations of the AWA. | Statute |
| U.S. v. Tierney (Unpublished) | 38 Fed. Appx. 424 (9th Cir. 2002) (unpub.) | 2002 U.S. App. LEXIS 4635 |
The district court did not err by denying the defendant's proposed entrapment instruction and that Nev. Admin. Code 504.471 is not unconstitutionally vague. He did not present evidence to support his position on either element. Rather than indicating government inducement or lack of predisposition, the evidence showed that the government merely provided the defendant with an opportunity to sell what he was already ready and willing to sell. The court also found the meaning of "wildlife" under Nevada law was not unconstitutionally vague. |
Case |
| State v. Sego | 2006 WL 3734664 (Del.Com.Pl. 2006) (unpublished) |
Fifteen horses were seized by the Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (SPCA) because the animals were in poor condition. The SPCA sent bills to the owners for feeding, upkeep, and veterinary care, but the owners did not pay the bills. After 30 days of nonpayment, the SPCA became the owners of the horses, and the prior owners were not entitled to get the horses back. |
Case | |
| WY - Domestic Violence - § 35-21-105. Order of protection; contents; remedies; order not to affect title to property; conditions | W. S. 1977 § 35-21-105 | WY ST § 35-21-105 | In 2019, Wyoming amended its domestic violence protection order law by adding subparts (a)(ix) and (a)(x). Subpart (a)(ix) grants sole possession of any household pet, as defined in W.S. 6-3-203(o), owned, possessed or kept by the petitioner, the respondent or a minor child residing in the residence or household of either the petitioner or the respondent to the petitioner during the period the order of protection is effective if the order is for the purpose of protecting the household pet. In addition, under subpart (a)(x), the court may order that the respondent not have contact with the household pet(s) in the custody of the petitioner and prohibit the respondent from abducting, removing, concealing or disposing of the household pet if the order is for the purpose of protecting the household pet. | Statute |
| OR - Damages - 30.822. Theft of or injury to search and rescue animal or therapy animal; attorney fees | O. R. S. § 30.822 | OR ST § 30.822 | This Oregon law provides that the owner of a search and rescue animal or a therapy animal may bring an action for economic and noneconomic damages against any person who steals or, without provocation, attacks the search and rescue animal or therapy animal. The owner may also bring an action for such damages against the owner of any animal that, without provocation, attacks a search and rescue animal or therapy animal. If the animal dies as a result of the injuries sustained or the incident prevents the animal from returning to service, the measure of economic damages shall include, but need not be limited to, the replacement value of an equally trained animal, without any differentiation for the age or the experience of the animal. If the animal recovers and returns to service, the measure of economic damages shall include, but need not be limited to, the costs of temporary replacement services, veterinary medical expenses and any other costs and expenses incurred by the owner as a result of the theft of or injury to the animal. | Statute |
| MT - Animal Welfare - Animal Welfare Act | Chapter 439, Act XXV |
The purpose of this Act is to establish and consolidate the protection of animals kept for work, sport, companionship, and food. The term "animal" is defined under the Act as ‘all living members of the animal kingdom, other than human beings, and includes free-living larval and, or, reproducing larval forms, but does not include foetal or embryonic forms.’ |
Statute | |
| Center for Biological Diversity v. Lubchenco | 758 F.Supp.2d 945 (N.D.Cal., 2010) | 2010 WL 5288188 (N.D.Cal.) |
In this civil action for declaratory and injunctive relief, the court found that Defendants did not violate the Endangered Species Act (“ESA”) in failing to list the ribbon seal as threatened or endangered due to shrinking sea ice habitat essential to the species’ survival. Defendants did not act arbitrarily and capriciously in concluding that the impact of Russia’s commercial harvest on the ribbon seal was low, that 2050 was the “foreseeable future” due to uncertainty about global warming and ocean acidification farther into the future, or its choice of scientific and commercial data to use. The Court denied Plaintiffs' Motion for Summary Judgment and granted Defendants' Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment.
|
Case |
| Mitchell v. Heinrichs | 27 P.3d 309 (Alaska, 2001) |
Defendant shot plaintiff's dogs after perceiving they were a threat to her livestock and her when they trespassed upon her property. In denying defendant's claim for punitive damages, the court observed that in this case, defendant's conduct, while drastic, did not rise to the level of outrageousness. With regard to the trial court's award of only the market value of the dog to plaintiff , the court noted that it agreed with those courts that recognize that the actual value of the pet to the owner, rather than the fair market value, is sometimes the proper measure of the pet's value. However, the court declined to award Mitchell damages for her dog's sentimental value as a component of actual value to her as the dog's owner. |
Case | |
| Bolivia - Dangerous dog - LEY Nº 553 , 2014 | LEY Nº 553, 2014 | This law contains the legal framework that establishes the minimum legal conditions for the possession of dangerous dogs. The purpose of this law is to prevent aggression against people and their property by prohibiting the possession of dangerous dogs. Possession of dangerous dogs is allowed with prior authorization, obtaining a license, and compliance with safety measures established in this law. | Statute | |
| New York Consolidated Laws 1909: Sections 180-196 | N.Y. Penal Law §§ 180-196 (Consol. 1909) | Article 16, entitled "Animals," concerns New York's Law about the treatment of animals from 1909. The act covers such topics as the keeping of animals for fighting to abandoning diseased or injured animals. In addition, the act provides definitions in section 180 for important words such as animal and torture. | Statute |