Results
Displaying 41 - 50 of 6638
| Title | Citation | Alternate Citation | Summary | Type |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| State v. Agee | --- N.E.3d ---- , 2019 WL 3504010 (Ohio App., 2019) | 2019-Ohio-3107 | The Humane Society brought this action in response to a complaint regarding a dog tangled in a tether. Three German Shepherds were discovered that belonged to the Defendant, Shawn Agee, Jr. The dogs were suffering from maltreatment. All three had been restrained without access to water or food and one of the dog’s tethers was wrapped so tightly that its leg had started to swell. Two of the dogs were suffering from fly strike. The State charged the Defendant with 12 criminal misdemeanors relating to the treatment of the three animals. The trial court acquitted the Defendant of 10 of those counts because of his unrebutted testimony that he had been out of town for the weekend and had left the dogs in the care of his mother. The Defendant was found guilty to two second-degree misdemeanors relating to the two dogs suffering from fly strike because those particular injuries were long time, very painful injuries that were not being treated and the Defendant was the dogs’ “confiner, custodian, or caretaker.” The Defendant was sentenced to community control, a fine of $100, a suspended jail sentence of 180 days, the surrender of the two dogs with fly strike, and the proviso that the remaining dog be provided with regular vet appointments and various other conditions. This appeal followed. The Defendant asserted that the Court erred by finding that he had in fact violated the statute that he was found guilty of and that his convictions were not supported by legally sufficient evidence. The Defendant argued that he did not qualify as the type or class of persons subject to criminal liability merely as an owner. The Court noted that the trial court did not impose liability due to his status as the dogs’ owner, but rather due to this having served as the two dogs’ confiner, custodian, or caretaker when they developed fly strike and should have been but were not properly treated. As for the second assignment of error, the Court found that there was sufficient evidence to find that the Defendant had violated the statute. The Defendant had admitted that he knew that the two dogs had fly strike “two or three weeks before he left town for the weekend.” The dogs were not treated before he left town. The Court ultimately affirmed both convictions. | Case |
| VT - Education - § 912. Student's right of refusal; animal dissection | 16 V.S.A. § 912 | This Vermont law gives a student in a public elementary or secondary school (or approved independent school) a right to be excused from lessons requiring a student to dissect, vivisect, or otherwise destroy an animal, or observe any of these activities. Each school district must establish procedures for a student to exercise this right and alternatives methods of learning the material covered. School districts must also adopt a statement that no student shall be discriminated against based on his or her decision to exercise the right to be excused afforded by this section. | Statute | |
| CA - Fur - § 996. Fur bearing animals raised in captivity; ownership; protection of law | West's Ann. Cal. Civ. Code § 996 | CA CIVIL § 996 | This California law provides that any furbearing animal whether born in captivity or brought into captivity for the purpose of pelting is regarded as personal property, the same as other domestic animals. | Statute |
| EU - Farming - Commission Directive 2002/4/EC on the registration of establishments keeping laying hens | Commission Directive 2002/4/EC |
This EU commission directive concerns Council Directive 1999/74/EC on the registration of establishments keeping laying hens. It mandates that Member States establish a registration system for egg producers covered by Directive 199/74/EC. |
Statute | |
| U.S. v. Brigham Oil and Gas, L.P. | 840 F. Supp. 2d 1202, 1203 (D.N.D. 2012), appeal dismissed (Apr. 18, 2012) | The Government charged Brigham Oil & Gas, L.P.with “taking” (killing) two migratory birds found dead near one of its reserve pits. But, the Court found that the use of reserve pits in commercial oil development is legal, commercially-useful activity that stands outside the reach of the federal Migratory Bird Treaty Act. Therefore, the Court held that the oil and gas companies' use of reserve pits did not violate Migratory Bird Treaty Act's prohibition against taking of protected birds, since death or injury was not intentional, and grated the defendant's motion to dismiss. | Case | |
| UK - Wildlife - Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2017 | 2017 No. 1012 | These Regulations consolidated the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2010, and made minor modifications. Part 3, regulation 43 makes it an offence (subject to exceptions) to deliberately capture, kill or disturb certain wild animals or to trade in them. Regulation 45 prohibits the use of certain methods of capturing or killing wild animals. | Statute | |
| AZ - License and Vaccination Ordinances - Exemption of cities, towns and counties (dogs/animals) | A. R. S. § 11-1018 | AZ ST § 11-1018 | This Arizona statute exempts cities or towns from the provisions of this article if they impose a license fee and vaccination on dogs by ordinance, provided that such ordinance is equal to or more stringent than the provisions of this article. Further, the provisions of this article shall not apply to counties which regulate the running at large of dogs in the unincorporated areas of the county by ordinance provided that such ordinance is equal to or more stringent than the provisions of this article. | Statute |
| Massachusetts General Law Statutes 1860-1872: Chapter 344: Sections 1-3 | Mass. Gen. L. ch. 344 (1869) | The Massachusetts law from 1869 stated in Chapter 344 concerns the treatment of animals. The first section is a generic animal cruelty act. The second section details the punishment for owners of animals that allow their animals to be treated cruelly by a third party. The third section concerns the treatment of animals during transportation. | Statute | |
| WY - Hunting - Article 4. Miscellaneous Acts Prohibited (hunter harassment) | W. S. 1977 §§ 23-3-401 to 407 | WY ST §§ 23-3-401 to 407 | This section of Wyoming laws relates to miscellaneous prohibited hunting acts. Included is the state's hunter harassment law, which provides that no person shall with the intent to prevent or hinder the lawful taking of any wildlife. Violation is a "low misdemeanor." Article 4 also includes a 2009 law that prohibits remote hunting that allows a person not physically present to remotely control a weapon to kill wildlife. | Statute |
| KY - Pig, feral - 150.186 Release of hog or pig into the wild prohibited; | KRS § 150.186 | KY ST § 150.186 | This Kentucky law prohibits the release of a hog or pig from the family Suidae into the wild. It also prohibits the importation, possession, or transportation in Kentucky any wild or feral pig, Eurasian or Russian boar, or any hybrid of these, whether born in the wild or captivity. | Statute |