Results
Displaying 6021 - 6030 of 6639
| Title | Citation | Alternate Citation | Summary | Type |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| McBride v. Orr | 466 A.2d 952 (N.H., 1983) | 124 N.H. 66, 42 A.L.R.4th 835 (N.H. 1983) |
In this New Hampshire case, defendant animal control officer killed plaintiff’s dog believing that it was in pursuit of a deer. Defendant claimed immunity pursuant to a state statute. The Court reversed and remanded for a determination of damages for the plaintiff. The Court went on to state that the purpose of the statute was not to authorize defendant’s killing of plaintiff’s dog when the dog was no longer pursuing the deer. |
Case |
| Morgan v. State | 656 S.E.2d 857(Ga.App., 2008) | 2008 WL 142325 (Ga.App.), 289 Ga.App. 209 (2008) |
Deputy removed sick and malnourished animals from Defendant's property, initiated by a neighbor's call to the Sheriff. Defendant was convicted in a jury trial of cruelty to animals. He appealed, alleging illegal search and seizure based on lack of exigent circumstances to enter his property. The court found that deputy's entry into the home was done with Morgan's lawful consent, and, as such, the subsequent seizure of the dogs in the home was based on the deputy's plain view observations in a location where he was authorized to be. |
Case |
| AL - Dog - Chapter 49. Mobile County Dog Laws | Ala. Code 1975 § 45-49-170.20 - .28; Ala.Code 1975 § 45-49-231 | AL ST § 45-49-170.20 - .28; AL ST § 45-49-231 | These are laws specific to Mobile County in Alabama. The first set of laws concern the regulation of dangerous or nuisance dogs in the county. An animal control officer or law enforcement officer of Mobile County shall investigate any incidents involving any dog reported to be dangerous or a nuisance in the unincorporated areas of Mobile County. If there is probable cause to believe that an owned dog is dangerous or a nuisance and has caused serious physical injury or has caused damage to real or personal property, the law enforcement officer or animal control officer shall impound the dog pending disposition of a petition to declare a dog to be dangerous or a nuisance. The next law (§ 45-49-231) concerns theft of dogs in the county. Any person who picks up a dog wearing a collar and name plate bearing the name and address of the owner of the dog shall make contact with the owner and deliver the dog to the owner, or return the dog to the place where the dog was picked up. If the person fails to carry out this section, he or she shall be subject to arrest and prosecution for the crime of theft as provided in Chapter 8 of Title 13A. | Statute |
| IA - Impoundment - 351.37. Dogs running at large--impoundment--disposition | I. C. A. § 351.37 | IA ST § 351.37 | This Iowa statute provides that a dog shall be impounded by a local board of health or law enforcement official if the dog is running at large and the dog is not wearing a valid rabies vaccination tag. The statute requires that written notice be sent to the owner (if the owner's name can be reasonably determined from a tag or other source) who then has seven days to redeem the dog before it is euthanized. | Statute |
| CA - Horse tack - § 597k. Bristle bur, tack bur, etc.; use on animals | West's Ann. Cal. Penal Code § 597k | CA PENAL § 597k | This section makes it a misdemeanor to use a bristle bur, tack bur, or similar device, to be used on a horse or any other animal. A violation is punishable with imprisonment and/or imprisonment. | Statute |
| Commonwealth v. Epifania | 951 N.E.2d 723 (Mass.App.Ct.,2011) | 80 Mass.App.Ct. 71 (2011), 2011 WL 3435385 |
Defendant appealed his conviction of arson for setting fire to a dwelling house, and wilfully and maliciously killing the animal of another person. The Appeals Court held that testimony that the cat belonged to the victim was sufficient to support a conviction of wilfully and maliciously killing the animal of another person. |
Case |
| SAMUEL ZIMMERMAN v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA AND SECRETARY OF AGRICULTURE | 57 Agric. Dec. 869 (1998) | 1998 WL 1806372 (U.S.D.A.) | Agency's choice of sanction is not to be overturned unless it is unwarranted by law, unjustified by facts, or represents abuse of discretion; sanction is not rendered invalid in particular case because it is more severe than sanctions imposed in other cases. | Case |
| Ecuador - Rights of nature - Environmental Code of Ecuador | Código Orgánico del Ambiente (COA) | The Environmental Code was published in 2018. It aims to “guarantee the right of people to live in a healthy and ecologically balanced environment, as well as protect the rights of nature for the realization of good living.” This code was the base for reforming the Criminal Code, which increased the punishment for animal cruelty. This law contains administrative sanctions, including fines, animal confiscation, community service, prohibition to acquire or keep animals temporarily or permanently, and payment of veterinary, food, and maintenance costs required for the animal’s recovery, among others. The environmental code contains environmental management provisions, including wildlife, urban fauna, climate change, waste management, etc. Under this code, the welfare of domestic animals and wildlife is a duty. It establishes the obligations and responsibilities related to animals. Regulations, control management, and coordination of the parameters outlined in this law lay on the Autonomous decentralized Municipal or Metropolitan Governments. For instance, cities have the power to regulate animal welfare concerning the ownership of animals and during the rearing, commercialization, breeding, transportation, and euthanasia of animals. Another example of this power vested in the cities and municipalities is the responsibility to establish plans and programs to prevent, manage, and control animal populations. This includes informative and educational campaigns on animal welfare, sterilization, and responsible adoption. | Statute | |
| NV - Equine Activity - Limitations on liability; duties of a participant in an equine activity; exceptions; definitions | Nev. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 41.519 | Nev. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 41.519 (West) | This Nevada statute limits the liability of equine sponsors and professionals, veterinarians, or any other person, for an injury to or death of a participant as a result of an inherent risk of equine activity. The statute also provides the duties that equine activity participants must complete. Finally, the statute provides the exceptions for when a person is not immune from civil liability under the statute and the definition of terms used within the statute. | Statute |
| MO - Lien, care and board - Chapter 430. Liens for Keeping, Training and Breeding Animals | V. A. M. S. 430.150 - 220 | MO ST 430.150 - 220 | This chapter of Missouri laws concerns liens for the keeping, training, and breeding of animals. Section 430.150 states that every person who keeps, boards or trains any horse, mule or other animal has a lien on such animal, and on any vehicle, harness or equipment that came with the animal, for the amount due. No owner or claimant has the right to take any such property out of the custody of the person having such lien, except with the lienholder's consent or on the payment of such debt. Section 430.160 outlines the procedure for enforcement of the lien, which includes where to file a claim and the notice requirements. | Statute |