Results
Displaying 6631 - 6640 of 6649
| Title | Citation | Alternate Citation | Agency Citation | Summary | Type |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| WV - Exotic Pet - § 20-2-51. Permit for keeping pets; § 20-2-52. Permits for roadside menageries | W. Va. Code, § 20-2-51; W. Va. Code, § 20-2-52 | WV ST § 20-2-51; WV ST § 20-2-52 | This West Virginia statute provides that the state fish and game director may issue a permit to a person to keep and maintain in captivity as a pet, a wild animal acquired from a commercial dealer or during the legal open season. The fee is charged is two dollars. | Statute | |
| State v. Charles | 878 S.E.2d 166, review denied, 891 S.E.2d 299 (N.C. 2023) | 285 N.C.App. 494, 2022-NCCOA-628 (N.C.App., 2022) | Defendant Cheito Charles appealed from judgments entered upon a jury verdict finding him guilty of second-degree arson and felonious cruelty to animals. The incident stemmed from a house fire in the summer of 2020 where the defendant set fire to his sister's boyfriend's house while the boyfriend's puppy was still inside. At trial, the defendant contended that there was no evidence that he knew the existence of the puppy. However, the trial court instructed the jury that, in order to convict Defendant of felonious cruelty to animals, the jury need only conclude that Defendant maliciously and “intentionally start[ed] a house fire which proximately result[ed] in the injury or death to the animal.” There was no need to prove that Defendant was aware of the puppy in the home. Ultimately, Defendant was convicted of second-degree arson and felonious cruelty to animals. On appeal here, Defendant argues that the trial court erred by instructing the jury on the doctrine of transferred intent regarding the animal cruelty charge. This court rebuffed this argument, finding that there was no error with instruction since the jury only needed to conclude that Defendant maliciously set the fire that proximately caused the puppy's death. This same reasoning also supported the sufficiency of the evidence claim. The court dispensed with Defendant's final argument as to the sufficiency of the indictment. As a result, the appellate court found no error with Defendant's trial. | Case | |
| ND - Damages - § 36-21-13. Exemplary damages for injuries to domestic animals | NDCC 36-21-13 | ND ST 36-21-13 | This North Dakota statutes provides that exemplary damages may be applied for any wrongful injury to an animal committed willfully or by gross negligence | Statute | |
| The Nonhuman Rights Project, Inc. on behalf of Tommy, Petitioners, v. Patrick C. Lavery, individually and as an officer of Circl |
This set of pleadings is from the Nonhuman Rights Project (NhRP). The NhRP filed the first-ever lawsuit on behalf of captive chimpanzees in New York. The suit includes a petition for a writ of habeas corpus, demanding that the chimps be released from private captivity to a sanctuary that is part of the North American Primate Sanctuary Alliance (NAPSA). In 2014, the petitioners sought review at the New York Court of Appeals. |
Pleading | |||
| Re Nature Conservation Council of NSW Inc and Minister for Environment and Water Resources | (2007) 98 ALD 334 | [2007] AATA 1876 |
The Commonwealth Minister for the Environment and Water Resources declared an Ocean Trap and Line Fishery to be an approved wildlife trade operation. This permitted the export of sea life from the fishery. The Nature Conservation Council claimed that the fishery was detrimental to the survival of east coast grey nurse sharks. The Tribunal found that the operation would not be detrimental to the survival of the east coast grey nurse population. |
Case | |
| NY - Horse Racing - Section 4002.8. Qualifications for license | 9 NY ADC 4002.8 | 9 NYCRR 4002.8 | If the New York State Racing and Wagering Board finds that an applicant meets the criteria for financial responsibility, experience, character and fitness, then it will issue an occupational license to that person. | Administrative | |
| NV - Invasive - 503.597. Introduction or removal of aquatic life or wildlife | N. R. S. 503.597 | NV ST 503.597 | This Nevada law is aimed at aquatic invasive and injurious species. It states that, except as provided, it is unlawful, except by the written consent and approval, for any person at any time to receive, bring, or remove from one stream or body of water in this State to any other, or from one portion of the State to any other, or to any other state, any aquatic life or wildlife, or any spawn, eggs or young of any of them. A person who knowingly or intentionally introduces or attempts to introduce an aquatic invasive species or injurious aquatic species into any waters of this State is guilty of a misdemeanor for a first offense, and a category E felony for subsequent offenses. Additionally, a person convicted must pay a civil penalty of at least $25,000 but not more than $250,000, which is deposited into the Wildlife Account in the State General Fund to fight aquatic invasive species. | Statute | |
| MD - Emergency - § 5-614. Veterinary aid, care or assistance | MD Code, Courts and Judicial Proceedings, § 5-614 | MD CTS & JUD PRO § 5-614 | This Maryland law provides that certain individuals including veterinarians, licensed medical providers, first responders, volunteer fire fighters, and designated local government employees who are responding to a call in the community are not civilly liable for any act or omission in giving any veterinary aid, care, or assistance to an animal where the owner or custodian of the animal is not available to grant permission. Certain requirements must be met per subsection (b) for immunity from civil liability. | Statute | |
| VA - Ordinance - § 3.2-6587. Unlawful acts; penalties | Va. Code Ann. § 3.2-6587 | VA ST § 3.2-6587 | This Virginia statute describes the unlawful acts related to pets that will constitute Class 4 misdemeanors. Included are furnishing a false license application, failing to pay license tax, violating a leash or rabies ordinance, not disposing of dead companion animals per statute, and improperly concealing a pet. Also, a Class 1 misdemeanor may be imposed for falsely impersonating a humane officer or for falsifying a claim for animal damage. | Statute | |
| Los Altos Boots v. Bonta | Slip Copy, 2021 WL 5234864 (E.D. Cal. Nov. 10, 2021) | This unpublished California case considers the application of the recently amended statute (Penal Code section 653o), which makes it "unlawful to import into this state for commercial purposes, to possess with intent to sell, or to sell within the state, the dead body, or any part or product thereof, of an iguana, skink, caiman, hippopotamus, or a Teju, Ring, or Nile lizard" beginning January 1, 2022. The instant case concerns the importation of some caiman products. The businesses bringing the suit seek the enjoin the caiman prohibition while the lawsuit is pending. While the state contends that the plaintiffs lack standing because the claim is unripe, the court found the three-part standing test was satisfied. The court also found that the extraordinary remedy of a preliminary injunction was justified where plaintiffs are likely to succeed on the merits, the plaintiffs will suffer irreparable economic harm if section 653o goes into effect on January 1st that cannot not be mitigated by damages, and the balance of harms favors plaintiffs. Specifically, the court found that section 653o will create a "clear conflict between that section and the Endangered Species Act" and plaintiffs have demonstrated a serious harm to their businesses. The court declined to "wade into a policy dispute "whether California's or the United States’ wildlife protections are superior." The motion for a preliminary injunction was granted. The defendants, their employees, agents, and successors in office are enjoined from enforcing California Penal Code sections 653o(c) and 653r in connection with the importation, possession, or sale of caiman bodies, parts, or products until the final disposition of this case. | Case |