Results
Displaying 5801 - 5810 of 6637
| Title | Citation | Alternate Citation | Summary | Type | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Derecho Animal Volume 9 Núm 4 |
|
Policy | ||||||||
| KY -Wills and Trusts - 386B.4-080 Trust for care of animal | KRS § 386B.4-020; 386B.4-080 | KY ST § 386B.4-020; 386B.4-080 | A trust may be created to provide for the care of an animal alive during the settlor's lifetime. The trust terminates on the death of the animal or, if the trust was created to provide for the care of more than one (1) animal alive during the settlor's lifetime, on the death of the last surviving animal. | Statute | ||||||
| Dixon v. City of Woodland | This is an order for a settlment regarding police shooting a dog. | Pleading | ||||||||
| AZ - Dog - Arizona Consolidated Dog Laws | A. R. S. § 11-1001 - 1029; § 28-2422 - 2422.02; § 17-309 | AZ ST § 11-1001 - 1029; AZ ST § 28-2422 - 2422.02; AZ ST § 17-309 | These Arizona statutes comprise the laws relating to dogs and animal bites. Included are provisions related to registration, collaring, and vaccination of dogs. With regard to dangerous dogs, Arizona law provides that a person with knowledge of a dog's vicious propensity must also keep the dog in an enclosed yard or confined area with a sign indicating the dog's vicious tendencies. | Statute | ||||||
| Massachusetts 1854-1859: Chapter 96: An act to prevent cruelty to animals | Mass. Gen, Laws ch. 96, §§ 1-2 (1859) | Section 1 from Chapter 96 of Massachusetts General Laws of 1859 covers cruelty to animals. Specifically, the law covers what qualifies as cruelty to animals and the punishment for it. | Statute | |||||||
| American Horse Protection Asso. v. Frizzell | 203 F. Supp. 1206 (D. Nev. 1975) |
The court upheld the Secretary’s decision to remove 400 horses from certain public lands in Nevada because of the risks of overgrazing, but also asserted that the Secretary’s discretion was not so complete as to deny judicial review of his actions. |
Case | |||||||
| Thacker ex rel. Thacker v. Kroger Co. | 155 Fed.Appx. 946 (C.A.8 (Mo.),2005) | 2005 WL 3250075 |
Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed district court decision that Thacker family failed to link an injury to ground beef on which the USDA requested a recall. |
Case | ||||||
| MA - Police animals - 9A Emergency treatment of police dogs | M.G.L.A. 111C § 9A | MA ST 111C § 9A | This 2022 Massachusetts law mandates that EMS personnel provide emergency treatment to a police dog injured in the line of duty and transport such police dog by ambulance to a veterinary care facility equipped to provide emergency treatment to dogs. EMS personnel shall not transport an injured police dog if providing such transport would inhibit their ability to provide emergency medical attention or transport to a person requiring such services. The law also outlines training for EMS personnel in treating police dogs. | Statute | ||||||
| Dancy v. State | 287 So. 3d 931 (Miss. 2020) | 2020 WL 240457 (Miss. Jan. 16 , 2020) | The Justice Court of Union County found Michael Dancy guilty of three counts of animal cruelty and ordered the permanent forfeiture of Dancy’s six horses, four cats, and three dogs. Dancy appealed to the circuit court. The circuit court ordered that the animals be permanently forfeited and found Dancy guilty. The circuit court also ordered Dancy to pay $39,225 for care and boarding costs for the horses. Dancy subsequently appealed to the Supreme Court of Mississippi. Essentially, Dancy failed to provide adequate shelter, food, and water for the animals. The Court found that the circuit court properly released the animals to an animal protection organization. The Court also found that the reimbursement order was permissible. Two of Dancy’s three convictions were for violations of the same statute regarding simple cruelty, one for his four cats and one for his three dogs. The Court held that, according to the statute's plain language, Dancy’s cruelty to a combination of dogs and cats occurring at the same time "shall constitute a single offense." Thus, the State cannot punish Dancy twice for the same offense without violating his right against double jeopardy. For that reason, the court vacated Dancy’s second conviction of simple cruelty. The court affirmed the permanent forfeiture and reimbursement order and his other cruelty conviction. | Case | ||||||
| Poland - Cruelty - Polish Animal Protection Act | OJ No 111, Item 724(1997); No 106, Item 668 (1998) |
The general animal protection law for Poland. Covering all types of animal except hunting and endangered species. |
Statute |