Results
| Title | Citation | Alternate Citation | Summary | Type |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| VA - Hunting - § 29.1-530.3. Remote hunting prohibited; penalty | VA Code Ann. § 29.1-530.3 | VA ST § 29.1-530.3 | Under this Virginia statute, it is unlawful to engage in computer-assisted remote hunting or provide or operate a facility that allows others to engage in computer-assisted remote hunting if the wild animal or wild bird being hunted or shot is located in the Commonwealth. A violation is guilty of a Class 1 misdemeanor. | Statute |
| FL - Vehicle - 316.0825. Vehicle approaching an animal | West's F. S. A. § 316.0825 | West's F. S. A. § 316.0825 | Every person operating a motor vehicle shall use reasonable care when approaching or passing a person who is riding or leading an animal upon a roadway or the shoulder thereof. A violation of this section is a noncriminal traffic infraction. | Statute |
| IL - Facility dog - 5/106B-10. Conditions for testimony by a victim who is a child or a moderately, | 725 I.L.C.S. 5/106B-10 | IL ST CH 725 § 5/106B-10 | This Illinois law allows a "facility dog" - a dog that is a graduate of an assistance dog organization that is a member of Assistance Dogs International - to be present during the testimony of a victim who is a child or a moderately, severely, or profoundly intellectually disabled person or a person affected by a developmental disability. This occurs in the prosecution of criminal sexual assault, predatory criminal sexual assault of a child, aggravated criminal sexual assault, criminal sexual abuse, or aggravated criminal sexual abuse. When deciding whether to permit the child or person to testify with the assistance of a facility dog, the court shall take into consideration the age of the child or person, the rights of the parties to the litigation, and any other relevant factor that would facilitate the testimony by the child or the person. | Statute |
| MD - Prince George's County - Breed - § 3-185.01 Pit Bull Terriers. | PRINCE GEORGE'S COUNTY, MD., §§ 3-101, 3-116.01, 3-185.01 (1997) |
Prince George's County, Maryland prohibits owning or keeping a Pit Bull Terrier with exceptions. If the person owned the dog prior to November 1, 1996, then s/he may continue to keep it if s/he complies with certain conditions, such as registering it with the Administrator of Animal Control and keeping an ID tag on the dog and keeping the dog inside or on a secure leash. Show dogs are allowed into the county on a temporary basis. Dogs that have been trained for security, search and rescue, or for police or fire services are exempt. A violation of this ordinance may result in a fine of up to $1,000 or be sentenced to up to 6 months in prison. In addition, if a Pit Bull injures or kills a person or a domestic animal without provocation, then it will be destroyed. |
Local Ordinance | |
| State v. Spade | 695 S.E.2d 879 (W.Va., 2010) | 2010 WL 2243519 (W.Va.), 225 W.Va. 649 (2010) |
In 2006, appellant was charged with one count of animal cruelty after 149 dogs were seized from her rescue shelter. The Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia held that, since the appellant (1) entered into a valid plea agreement which "specifically and unequivocally reserved a restitution hearing" and (2) "attempted on numerous occasions to challenge the amounts she was required by the magistrate court to post in separate bonds," that the final order of the Circuit Court of Berkeley County should be reversed. Accordingly, the court found that the plaintiff was entitled to a restitution hearing to determine the actual reasonable costs incurred in providing care, medical treatment, and provisions to the animals seized. |
Case |
| Nichols v. Lowe's Home Center, Inc. | 407 F.Supp.2d 979 (S.D.Ill.,2006) |
A customer brought an action against Lowe's home improvement store to recover for injury sustained when a "wild bird" flew into the back of her head while she was shopping in the gardening area. The plaintiff argued that the defendant did not exercise reasonable care in making the premises safe and that the defendant did not warn customers that the birds were a dangerous condition on the premises. In granting the owner's motion for summary judgment, the court held that the store owner did not owe customer a duty under Illinois law to protect her from wild bird attack since attack was not reasonably foreseeable. Further, the store owner was not the "owner" or "keeper" of a "wild bird" within meaning of Illinois Animal Control Act. |
Case | |
| U.S. v. Martinelli | 240 F. Supp. 365 (N.D. Cal. 1965) |
Court held the 1962 version of the BGEPA mandates a jury trial where defendant requests one, despite the fact it constitutes a "petty offense." For further discussion of criminal prosecutions under the BGEPA, see Detailed Discussion of Eagle Act. |
Case | |
| SC - Hunting, Internet - § 50-11-95. Computer-assisted remote hunting and remote hunting | Code 1976 § 50-11-95 | SD ST § 50-11-95 | This statute makes it illegal to establish or operate computer-assisted remote hunting facilities in South Carolina. It is also illegal to engage in computer-assisted remote hunting if either the animal hunted, or any device, equipment, or software to remotely control the firearm is located in this State. A person who violates this section is guilty of a misdemeanor and may be fined at least $5,000 and/or imprisoned for up to one year. | Statute |
| Animal Law Index Volume 19, Part 1 |
Animal Law Review, Volume 19, Issue 1 (Fall 2012)INTRODUCTIONEMPATHY WITH ANIMALS: A LITMUS TEST FOR LEGAL PERSONHOOD? |
Policy | ||
| U.S. v. Hackman | 630 F.3d 1078 (8th Cir. 2011) | Defendants appealed sentences arising out of a Missouri-based dog-fighting conspiracy. Each man pleaded guilty to conspiring to engage in animal fighting ventures in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 371, and one Defendant additionally pleaded guilty to engaging in animal fighting ventures in violation of 7 U.S.C. § 2156. When sentencing each defendant, the district court applied an upward departure provision found in the application notes to United States Sentencing Guidelines (USSG or Guidelines). Each appellant argued that his relevant conduct was not sufficiently cruel to warrant the upward departure. The 8th Circuit found, however, that the district court had properly considered conduct that was legally relevant to Defendants' sentencing under the Guidelines. The court also found that Defendants' conduct amounted to more than just possessing fighting pit bulls. Defendants bred, raised, trained, sold, and fought them knowing that the dogs would be allowed, if not required, to fight until severely injured or dead. Thus, the ordinary cruelty inherent in dog fighting justifies base offense level, while the extraordinary cruelty of Defendants' crimes separately justified the upward departure. The district court's judgment was affirmed. | Case |