Results
Displaying 5871 - 5880 of 6637
| Title | Citation | Alternate Citation | Summary | Type | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| KY - Horse - 436.185 Exhibition of walking horse where the horse's front legs or hoofs show evidence of | KRS § 436.185 | KY ST § 436.185 | This law prohibits the showing or exhibition of a walking horse that shows evidence of burns, drugs, lacerations, any sharp pointed instrument, or any pain inflicting device. It is the duty of the ringmaster to inspect horses for such evidence. Failure of the ringmaster to do so results in a $10 - $100 fine. | Statute | ||||||
| Towers-Hammon v Burnett | [2007] QDC 282 |
The respondent pleaded guilty to bashing several cats with an iron bar causing four deaths. The dead cats, along with one severely beaten but still alive kitten, were placed in a bag and disposed of in a charity clothing bin. On appeal, it was held that the trial judge failed to have sufficient regard to the callous nature of the respondent's actions and the respondent was sentenced to three months' imprisonment. |
Case | |||||||
| Animal Protection Law - Mexico City | Ley de Protección Animal de Ciudad de México | This law seeks to protect animals, ensure their welfare, and provide attention, good treatment, maintenance, lodging, natural development, and health. Furthermore, it seeks to avoid mistreatment, cruelty, suffering, bestiality, and deformation of their physical characteristics, as well as to ensure animal health, public health, and the five freedoms of the animal. This law has had several reforms. Under this law, the Ministry of the Environment, through the Animal Care Agency, together with the Ministry of Education, coordinate the development of education, protection, care, and dignified treatment programs. At the same time, The Animal Care Agency, among other tasks, manages the veterinary hospital in the city. The sanctions imposed under Chapter X of this law, range from admonitions, and monetary fines, to arrest of up to 36 hours in the case of repeat offenders. This law stipulates the standards and regulations for the functioning of the Animal Surveillance Brigade, which is responsible for preventing animal cruelty, responding to reports of animal cruelty, and providing care to animals in need. | Statute | |||||||
| Derecho Animal Volume 8 Núm 3 |
|
Policy | ||||||||
| Parker v. Obert's Legacy Dairy, LCC | 988 N.E.2d 319 (In. Ct. App., 2013) | 2013 WL 1820364 |
A neighboring landowner brought a nuisance claim against a dairy farm when the dairy farm decided to expand its operations; the dairy farm, however, used Indiana’s Right to Farm Act as an affirmative defense. Agreeing with the dairy farm, the trial court granted the dairy farm’s motion for summary judgment. Upon appeal, the appeals court affirmed the lower court’s decision. |
Case | ||||||
| State v. Blatt | 235 W. Va. 489 (2015) | 2015 WL 3822761 (W. Va. 2015) | The Circuit Court of Wayne County ordered that Tinkerbell, a female pit bull terrier, be destroyed pursuant to West Virginia's vicious dog statute, after she injured a neighbor child who was playing in the dog’s yard. The circuit court's decision ordering that Tinkerbell be destroyed relied on a presumption that pit bull dog breeds are inherently vicious. Because extensive debate exists over whether scientific evidence and social concerns justify breed-specific presumptions, the court concluded that courts may not, upon judicial notice, rely solely upon a breed-specific presumption in ordering the destruction of a dog pursuant to West Virginia's vicious dog statute. The adoption of breed-specific presumptions with regard to this statute is the prerogative of the Legislature, not the judiciary, the court stated. In the absence of a breed-specific presumption, the court determined that neither the remaining findings of fact in the circuit court's destruction order nor the facts presented in the record provided satisfactory proof that Tinkerbell must be euthanized. Consequently, the court reversed the circuit court's destruction order. | Case | ||||||
| NV - Hunting - Chapter 503. Hunting, Fishing and Trapping | N. R. S. 503.015 | NV ST 503.015 | This law represents Nevada's hunter harassment provision. It is unlawful for a person, or a group of people acting together, to intentionally interfere with another person who is lawfully hunting or trapping. This section does not apply to any incidental interference from lawful activity by users of the public land, including without limitation ranchers, miners or persons seeking lawful recreation. | Statute | ||||||
| IN RE: MARLIN U. ZARTMAN D/B/A GILBERTSVILLE SALES STABLES. | 44 Agric. Dec. 174 (1985) | 1985 WL 62917 (U.S.D.A.) | Secretary is authorized to promulgate standards applicable to operator of auction sale as to care, treatment, housing, feeding, watering, and sanitation of animals, since literal language of 7 USCS § 2142 and its legislative history gives Secretary broad authority to impose on auction operator standards of humane handling of all animals subject to Animal Welfare Act, and although construing word "handling" in § 2143 broad enough to include those areas would nullify significance and effect of additional terms, contemporaneous construction of Act by administrative officials charged with responsibility for achieving congressional purpose of ensuring humane care and treatment of animals indicates Secretary has authority to impose such standards on auction operators. | Case | ||||||
| Phillips v. Department Appellant Reply Brief | In their reply brief, Appellants argue respondents' reliance on Simpson v. City of Los Angeles is misplaced. They also argued due process protection applies to all property and that respondents' claims are unsubstantiated. | Pleading | ||||||||
| Ley 27.330 | Ley 27.330 | This law prohibits dog racing in the country regardless of the dog breed. It establishes a punishment of up to four years of prison and fines for those who organize, promote, or facilitate dog races. | Statute |