Results
Displaying 61 - 70 of 6637
| Title | Citation | Alternate Citation | Summary | Type |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| OR - Lien, care - 87.159. Lien for care of animals | O.R.S. § 87.159 | OR ST § 87.159 | This law relates to liens for animals impounded under the animal cruelty laws (specifically ORS 167.345). A person who, or governmental agency that, transports, pastures, feeds, cares for or provides treatment to an animal that has been impounded under ORS 167.345 has a lien on the animal in the possession of the person or governmental agency for the reasonable charges for transportation, pasturage, feed, care or treatment provided by the person or governmental agency, and the person or governmental agency may retain possession of the animal until those charges are paid. | Statute |
| WI - Chickens, transport - 134.52. Shipment of chickens | W. S. A. 134.52 | WI ST 134.52 | This Wisconsin statute requires that poultry not be overcrowded and the shipping container must be at least 13 inches in high on the inside and covered at the top in a way that prevents the chickens from getting caught in the top. | Statute |
| PA - Ordinances - § 23144. To tax and destroy dogs | 53 P.S. § 23144 | PS ST 53 P.S. § 23144 | This briefly worded Pennsylvania statute presumably gives municipalities the authority "[t]o regulate and provide for taxing the owners and harborers of dogs, and to destroy dogs found at large contrary to any ordinance." | Statute |
| RSPCA v O'Loughlan | [2007] SASC 113 |
The appellant, the RSPCA, relied on the fact that a horse, once in RSPCA care, had a significantly improved condition in comparison to that described as 'emaciated' while in the respondent's care. The respondent claimed that the horse's condition fluctuated depending on the presence of mares in heat during summer and that she had tried several changes to the feed to counter a loss in weight. On appeal, the appellate judge did not disturb the trial judge's finding and confirmed that the respondent's conduct was reasonable in the circumstances. |
Case | |
| Loy v. Kenney | 301 Cal. Rptr. 3d 352 (Cal.App. 2 Dist., 2022), reh'g denied (Dec. 2, 2022) | 85 Cal.App.5th 403 (Cal.App. 2 Dist., 2022) | This is a case brought by purchasers of puppies from breeders advertising on Craigslist, against the breeders who were selling fatally sick puppies to these buyers. The buyers allege that the sellers misrepresented the puppies as healthy, when the dogs were actually too young to be separated from their mothers and many of these puppies ended up dying from illnesses such as parvovirus. The buyers brought suit for violation of the Consumers Legal Remedies Act, and for animal cruelty. The trial court granted a preliminary injunction to stop the sellers from advertising and selling dogs while trial was pending. This appeal followed, with the sellers arguing that there was insufficient evidence to show that they were the sellers of these sick puppies. However, the court of appeals affirmed. The court found that the evidence from the humane officer’s search of the seller’s home led to sufficient evidence that they were selling the sick puppies, including the seizure of 32 puppies and dogs living in unhealthy and cruel conditions. The puppies were being separated from their mothers too soon, and some were encrusted with feces. During the search, one of the sellers also told the officer that they would not stop selling puppies. Sellers attempted to raise several evidentiary objections to the evidence offered by the humane society officers, but all were rejected. Accordingly, the judgment was affirmed and awarded costs to the buyers who brought the action. | Case |
| IN - Cattle Slaughter - THE KERALA PANCHAYAT RAJ (SLAUGHTER HOUSES AND MEAT STALLS) RULES, 1996 | 13 or 1994 | These Rules regulate the operation of slaughterhouses and meat stalls. Animals may be slaughtered only in public or licensed slaughter houses within a village panchayat area. Slaughter houses may not be established within 90 metres of any house. Butchers require licenses for slaughtering animals. Animals may not be admitted to slaughter houses unless they are examined and certified as being free from contagious diseases. | Statute | |
| Japan, Convention Between the Government of the United States of America and the Government of Japan for the Protection of Migratory Birds and Birds in Danger of Extinction, and Their Environment | TIAS 7990 | Per Digest of Federal Resource Laws of Interest to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service: This 1972 Convention is designed to provide for the protection of species of birds which are common to both countries, or which migrate between them by (1) enhancement of habitat, (2) exchange of research data, and (3) regulation of hunting. It was signed in Tokyo on March 4, 1974, with ratification advised by the Senate of March 27, 1973, and documents of ratification exchanged September 19, 1972. The Convention entered into force September 19, 1974. An agreement amending the annex to the Convention by adding the Maloy Bittern was effected by exchange of notes September 19, 1974, entering into force December 19, 1974 (25 UST 3373; TIAS 7990). This exchange also included a list of endangered birds as provided for in Article IV of the Convention. Implementing legislation for the United States was achieved by enactment of P.L. 93-300, June 1, 1975 (88 Stat. 190), amending the Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918 (16 USC 703-711; 40 Stat. 755), as amended. By a 1988 exchange of diplomatic notes, Convention appendices were updated to correct common names of species, scientific names, and to both add and delete species on the list based upon the latest scientific knowledge. | Treaty | |
| TX - Hunting - § 62.0125. Harassment of Hunters, Trappers, and Fishermen | V. T. C. A., Parks & Wildlife Code § 62.0125 | TX PARKS & WILD § 62.0125 | This law represents Texas' hunter harassment law, also known as the Sportsman's Rights Act. Under the section, a person may not intentionally interfere with another person lawfully engaged in the process of hunting or catching wildlife, or intentionally harass, drive, or disturb any wildlife for the purpose of disrupting lawful hunting. Violation is a Class B misdemeanor. It is an affirmative defense to prosecution that the defendant's conduct is protected by the right to freedom of speech under the constitution of this state or the United States. | Statute |
| NV - Cruelty - Consolidated Cruelty Statutes | N. R. S. 574.010 to 574.550; N.R.S. 202.487; N.R.S. 201.455 | NV ST 574.010 to 574.550; N.R.S. 202.487 | This comprehensive section comprises the Nevada anti-cruelty statutes. The section first empowers private prevention of cruelty to animals societies and outlines their powers and responsibilities, including the power to arrest. Under this section, "animal" does not include the human race, but includes every other living creature. Animal cruelty, as described in Section 574.100, prohibits the overdriving, overloading, torture, cruel beating or unjustifiable injuring, maiming, mutilation or killing of an animal, as well as the deprivation of necessary sustenance, food or drink. The first offense under this section is a misdemeanor with enhancement to a felony for a third or subsequent convictions. Animals fighting is also prohibited under the section, with enhanced sentences for subsequent convictions. Other specific crimes include mistreatment of dogs, abandonment of animals, poisoning (although the section does not prohibit the destruction of "noxious animals"), and basic requirements for the care of dogs and cats kept in kennels or sold by pounds or pet shops. | Statute |
| Storms v. Fred Meyer Stores, Inc. | 120 P.3d 126 (Wash.App. Div. 1,2005) | 129 Wash.App. 820; 31 NDLR P 98 (Wash.App. Div. 1,2005) |
This Washington discrimination case was brought by a dog owner (Storms) with psychiatric conditions against a store and its managers who refused to allow her to stay in store with her alleged service dog. The dog was trained to put herself between Storms and other people so as to keep an open area around Storms and alleviate her anxiety (a symptom of her post-traumatic stress syndrome). The appellate court found that there was sufficient evidence to establish a prima facie case of discrimination against Fred Meyer for refusing to allow her to shop accompanied by her dog. Testimony showed that Brandy had been specifically trained to help Storms with her particular disability by placing herself in between Storms and others in a way that alleviated her anxiety, which was further corroborated by testimony that Brandy engaged in such behavior. Thus, evidence showed that the defendants' violated RCW 49.60.215 by not allowing Storms to do her own shopping within the store because she was accompanied by a service animal. |
Case |