Results
Displaying 1 - 10 of 6634
| Title | Citation | Alternate Citation | Summary | Type |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| California Veterinary Medical Ass'n v. City of West Hollywood | 61 Cal. Rptr. 3d 318 (2007) | 152 Cal. App. 4th 536; 2007 WL 1793052 (Cal.App. 2 Dist.), 152 Cal.App.4th 536 | This California case centers on an anti-cat declawing ordinance passed by the city of West Hollywood in 2003. On cross-motions for summary judgment the trial court concluded West Hollywood's anti-declawing ordinance was preempted by section 460 and entered judgment in favor of the CVMA, declaring the ordinance invalid and enjoining further enforcement. On appeal, however, this Court reversed, finding section 460 of the veterinary code does not preempt the ordinance. Although section 460 prohibits local legislation imposing separate and additional licensing requirements or other qualifications on individuals holding state licenses issued by agencies of the Department of Consumer Affairs (DCA), it does not preclude otherwise valid local regulation of the manner in which a business or profession is performed. | Case |
| Wales - Dogs - The Animal Welfare (Breeding of Dogs) (Wales) Regulations 2014 | 2014 No. 3266 (W. 333) | Regulations to license persons breeding dogs in Wales. | Statute | |
| SD - Equine Activity Liability - Chapter 42-11. Equine Activities. | S D C L § 42-11-1 to 5 | SD ST § 42-11-1 to 5 | This act stipulates that an equine sponsor, equine professional, doctor of veterinary medicine or any other person, is immune from liability for the death or injury of a participant, which resulted from the inherent risks of equine activities. However, there are exceptions to this rule: a person will be held liable for injuries of an equine activity participant if he or she displays a willful and wanton or intentional disregard for the safety of the participant and if he or she fails to make reasonable and prudent efforts in ensuring the safety of the participant. In addition, a person will also be held liable for the injury of an equine activity participant if he or she is injured on the land or at a facility due to a dangerous latent condition of which was known to the equine sponsor, professional or other person. | Statute |
| Goodell v. Humboldt County | 575 N.W.29 486 (Iowa 1998) |
The issue of county versus local control over livestock regulations came to a head when the Iowa Supreme Court invalidated a series of ordinances that had been enacted by the Humboldt County Board of Supervisors to add additional regulations to the livestock industry and to address problems created by confined animal feeding operations in the county. The court ruled that the ordinances were inconsistent with state law and invalid under the doctrine of implied preemption. |
Case | |
| Westfall v. State | 10 S.W.3d 85 (Tex. App. 1999) |
Defendant convicted of cruelty for intentionally or knowingly torturing his cattle by failing to provide necessary food or care, causing them to die. Defendant lacked standing to challenge warrantless search of property because he had no expectation of privacy under open fields doctrine. |
Case | |
| MA - Horse - § 3. Sleigh or sled; bells | M.G.L.A. 89 § 3 | This Massachusetts law states that no person shall travel on a way with a sleigh or sled drawn by a horse, unless there are at least three bells attached to some part of the harness. | Statute | |
| OK - Dangerous - § 717. Owner of mischievous animal which kills person | 21 Okl. St. Ann. § 717 | OK ST T. 21 § 717 | This Oklahoma law states that an owner of a "mischievous animal" who knowing its propensities allows it to go at large or does not exercise ordinary care in keeping it, will be guilty of manslaughter in the second degree if while at large it kills a human. | Statute |
| Commonwealth v. Brown | Commonwealth v. Brown, 66 Pa. Super. 519 (1917). | No. 16, Oct. T., 1916 |
The defendant was convicted of cruelty to animals for the use of acid on some horses' feet. The defendant appealed the descision because the lower court had found the Commonwealth's circumstantial evidence to be enough to submit the question of quilt to the jury. The Superior Court found that some of the evidence was improperly admitted by the lower court. Thus, the Superior Court reversed the judgement. |
Case |
| Cleveland Hts. v. Jones | 2006 WL 256638 (Ohio App. 8 Dist.) | Slip Copy, 2006 WL 256638 (Ohio App. 8 Dist.), 2006-Ohio-454 | In this Ohio case, the defendant was convicted in the Cleveland Heights Municipal Court of keeping more than two dogs at his single-family residence contrary to an ordinance that limited the keeping of more than two dogs at a single-family residence (defendant was found to have three dogs, one of whom he said was "visiting" his daughter). In affirming defendant's conviction, the court found no merit to defendant's challenge that the term "kept" was ambiguous. Further, the evidence adduced at trial was sufficient to support defendant's conviction where the officer witnessed the dogs at the residence and defendant admitted to having three dogs in his home even without ownership of the third. | Case |
| CA - Import, dog - Chapter 1.5. Dog Importation: Health Certificates | West's Ann. Cal. Health & Safety Code § 121720 - 121723 | This chapter relates to importation of dogs into California for sale purposes. A person seeking to bring a dog into this state or importing dogs into this state for the purpose of resale or change of ownership shall obtain a health certificate for that dog, completed by a licensed veterinarian and is dated within 10 days prior to the date on which the dog is brought into the state. However, this chapter does not apply to a person who brings a dog into the state that will not be offered for resale or if the ownership of the dog is not expected to change or to dogs used military or law enforcement work. A person who violates a provision of this chapter is guilty of an infraction, punishable by a fine not to exceed $250 for each dog for which a violation has occurred. | Statute |