Results
Displaying 41 - 50 of 6637
| Title | Citation | Alternate Citation | Agency Citation | Summary | Type |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Gruber v. YMCA of Greater Indianapolis | 34 N.E.3d 264 (Ind. Ct. App. 2015) | 2015 WL 3534886 (Ind. Ct. App. 2015) | An eleven-year-old boy was at a YMCA camp when a pig—which had never injured anyone or exhibited any dangerous propensities—stuck its head between the bars of its pen and grabbed the boy's hand, causing injuries. The boy and his mother sued the camp, and the camp filed a motion for summary judgment. The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of the camp. On appeal, the boy and his mother asked the court to change the standard for liability of owners of domestic animals to that of strict liability when the animal was not a cat or dog. Since the Indiana Supreme Court precedent was clear that this general rule applied to all domestic animals—and not just cats and dogs—the court declined their invitation to alter the standard. The trial court's entry of summary judgment in favor of the camp was therefore affirmed. | Case | |
| ME - Lost Property - Chapter 21. Lost Goods and Stray Beasts. | 33 M. R. S. A. § 1051 - 1060 | ME ST T. 33 § 1051 - 1060 | This section comprises Maine's Lost Goods and Stray Beasts Act. | Statute | |
| US - Disability - Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) | 42 U.S.C.A. § 12101, 12102, 12132; 2 U.S.C.A. § 1311 | Following are excerpted sections from the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 that relate to assistance animals. Also included is § 1311 of the Civil Rights Act that defines discriminatory practices and outlines the remedies for such violations. | Statute | ||
| People v. Romano | 908 N.Y.S.2d 520 (N.Y.Sup.App.Term,2010) | 2010 WL 3339158 (N.Y.Sup.App.Term) |
Defendant appealed a conviction of animal cruelty under Agriculture and Markets Law § 353 for failing to groom the dog for a prolonged period of time and failing to seek medical care for it. Defendant argued that the term “unjustifiably injures” in the statute was unconstitutionally vague, but the Court held the term was not because a person could readily comprehend that he or she must refrain from causing unjustifiable injury to a domestic pet by failing to groom it for several months and seeking medical care when clear, objective signs are present that the animal needs such care. |
Case | |
| Nelson v. Lewis | 344 N.E.2d 268 (Ill.App. 1976) | 36 Ill.App.3d 130 (1976) |
Toddler accidentally stepped on the tail of the owner's dog, and the dog responded by scratching her eye, causing permanent damage to the tear duct. The toddler sought damages under Ill. Rev. Stat. ch. 8, para. 366 (1973), arguing that her unintentional act did not constitute provocation. The court held that provocation under the statute referred to both intentional or unintentional acts. Because the dog was provoked by the unintentional act, he did not react viciously. |
Case | |
| IN - Draught Animals - THE PREVENTION OF CRUELTY TO DRAUGHT AND PACK ANIMALS RULES, 1965 | Section 38 of the prevention of cruelty to Animals Act, 1960 | The Rules, drafted under Section 38(2) of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1965, regulate the weights that cattle and horses can draw. The Rules also stipulate the conditions under which animals may not be allowed to draw vehicles or carry loads. The Rules also prohibit the use of spiked sticks and bits. | Statute | ||
| IL - Testing - 620/17.2. Cosmetic testing on animals | 410 I.L.C.S. 620/17.2 | IL ST CH 410 § 620/17.2 | This law from 2019 makes it unlawful for a manufacturer to import for profit, sell, or offer for sale in this State any cosmetic, if the cosmetic was developed or manufactured using an animal test that was conducted or contracted by the manufacturer, or any supplier of the manufacturer, on or after January 1, 2020. There is an exception when an ingredient is in wide use and cannot be replaced by another ingredient capable of performing a similar function; a specific human health problem is substantiated and the need to conduct animal tests is justified and supported by a detailed research protocol proposed as the basis for the evaluation; and there is not a nonanimal alternative method accepted for the relevant endpoint by the relevant federal or State regulatory authority. | Statute | |
| Great Ape Laws by State |
|
Basic page | |||
| South Africa - Biological Diversity - Regulations | These South African regulations were made relating to listed threatened and protected species of the National Environmental Management: Biodiversity Act, 2004. The purpose of these regulations is to further regulate the permit system set out in Chapter 7 of the Biodiversity Act insofar as that system applies to restricted activities involving specimens of listed threatened or protected species; to provide for the registration of captive breeding operations, commercial exhibition facilities, game farms, nurseries, scientific institutions, sanctuaries and rehabilitation facilities and wildlife traders; to provide for the regulation of the carrying out of a specific restricted activity, namely hunting; to provide for the prohibition of specific restricted activities involving specific listed threatened or protected species; to provide for the protection of wild populations of listed threatened species; and to provide for the composition and operating procedure of the Scientific Authority. | Statute | |||
| US - Endangered - Policy Regarding the Recognition of Distinct Vertebrate Population Segments | 1996 WL 46339 (F.R.) | FR Doc. 96-2639 | The Fish and Wildlife Service and the National Marine Fisheries Service (Services) have adopted a policy to clarify their interpretation of the phrase "distinct population segment of any species of vertebrate fish or wildlife" for the purposes of listing, delisting, and reclassifying species under the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (61 U.S.C. 1531 et. seq.) (Act). | Administrative |