Results
Displaying 6181 - 6190 of 6638
| Title | Citation | Alternate Citation | Agency Citation | Summary | Type |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| VA - Vehicle - § 3.2-6504.1. Civil immunity; forcible entry of motor vehicle to remove unattended companion animal. | Va. Code Ann. § 3.2-6504.1 | VA ST § 3.2-6504.1 | This Virginia law was signed by the Governor on April 1, 2016. The law provides that no law-enforcement officer, firefighter, emergency medical services personnel, or animal control officer who in good faith forcibly enters a motor vehicle in order to remove an unattended companion animal that is at risk of serious bodily injury or death shall be liable for any property damage to the vehicle entered or injury to the animal resulting from such forcible entry and removal of the animal, unless such property damage or injury results from gross negligence or willful or wanton misconduct. | Statute | |
| US - Marine Mammals- Marine Mammal Protection Act | 16 USC 1361 - 1421h | The Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA) is the main regulatory vehicle that protects marine mammal species and their habitats in an effort to main sustainable populations. In doing so, the statute outlines prohibitions, required permits, criminal and civil penalties, and international aspects in addressing marine mammals. Included in the MMPA are provisions to protect dolphins from ocean vessels that harvest tuna with purse seine nets; provisions to protect polar bear; provisions that establish the Marine Mammal Commission and that agency's duties; and provisions for the Marine Mammal Health and Stranding Response Program, including funding for standing response and unusual mortality events. The Act's 1972 Legislative History is also included. | Statute | ||
| MA - Dog - Consolidated Dog Laws | M.G.L.A. 2 § 14; M.G.L.A. 112 § 12Z; M.G.L.A. 128A § 14E; M.G.L.A. 266 § 47; M.G.L.A. 140 § 136A - § 174F; M.G.L.A. 129 § 39G; M.G.L.A. 131 § 20, 21, 21A, 82 | MA ST 2 § 14; MA ST 112 § 12Z; MA ST 128A § 14E; MA ST 266 § 47; MA ST 140 § 136A - § 174F; MA ST 129 § 39G; MA ST 131 § 20, 21, 21A, 82 | These Massachusetts statutes comprise the state's dog laws. Among the provisions include licensing laws, dangerous dog laws, and rabies vaccination provisions. | Statute | |
| US - Invasive - Chapter 67. Aquatic Nuisance Prevention and Control | 16 USCS 4701 - 4751 | The Act focuses on all aquatics, including aquatic plants. The Act created the Aquatic Nuisance Species Task Force, which is an intergovernmental organization, administered by the Fish and Wildlife Service, committed to preventing and controlling aquatic nuisance species and implementing the Nonindigenous Aquatic Nuisance Prevention and Control Act. The Task Force coordinates Federal governmental efforts dealing with aquatic nuisance species with those of state and local governments, non-governmental organizations, academic institutions, and the private sector. | Statute | ||
| Taft v. Taft | 433 S.E.2d 667 (Ga.App.,1993) | 209 Ga.App. 499 (Ga.App.,1993) |
In this Georgia case, an adult son, who was business invitee, brought an action against his father to recover for injuries sustained when he was attacked by his father's bull while attempting to corral it for market. The lower court entered judgment for son, and father then appealed. The Court of Appeals, held that it for the jury to determine questions as to proximate cause, viciousness of bull, assumption of risk, superior or equal knowledge, contributory negligence, and negligence of the plaintiff. The failure of the trial court to charge adequately on proximate cause required a reversal, notwithstanding appellant's lack of a timely and proper request for a specific proximate cause charge. Judgment reversed.
|
Case | |
| Warboys v. Proulx | 303 F.Supp.2d 111 (D. Conn. 2004) | 2004 WL 234395 (D. Conn. 2004) |
Pitbull owner filed suit seeking compensatory damages arising from the shotting and killing of his dog by police. Defendants removed the action based on federal question jurisdiction and moved for summary judgment, and the dog owner moved to amend the complaint. Motions granted. |
Case | |
| Resolución 063/2018 - Comisión Derechos Humanos del Estado de Guerrero, Mexico | Resolución 063/2018 | Resolution 063/2018 by the Human Rights Commission of Guerrero, Mexico addresses concerns raised by members of the civil association "Responsible Citizen" and a professor and students from the Master's in Law program at the Autonomous University of Guerrero against the Director of Zoochilpan Zoo. The complaint alleged violations to the state animal protection statute, the Rights of Nature (Recognized in the constitution since 2014), and the right to a healthy environment due to inadequate conditions for the animals. After an inspection, the commission noted various issues such as animals of diverse species living together, dirty water in a pond, and animals in small enclosures. The zoo also failed to meet the standards of the Association of zoos, breeders, and aquariums "AZCARM," leading to recommendations for improvement. Resulting from these inspections, the commission found that the animals were housed inadequately, violating the state anti-cruelty law. They also highlighted potential impacts on the human right to a healthy environment for visitors and zoo staff. The Commission's recommendations include advising the Secretary of the Environment to implement recommendations for the welfare of exhibited animals, suggesting ongoing training for zoo staff to ensure dignified treatment, and advising the Zoo Director to implement legal and administrative measures for the animals' well-being, including budget allocation for necessary infrastructure and optimal conditions. | Case | ||
| Hansen v. U.S. Dept. of Agriculture | 221 F.3d 1342 (8th Cir. 2000) | 2000 WL 1010575 (8th Cir. 2000) | Judie Hansen petitions for review of a final decision of the Secretary of the United States Department of Agriculture. Because the 8th Circuit has no jurisdiction over the matter, the petition is dismissed. | Case | |
| US - AWA - Subpart A. Specifications for the Humane Handling, Care, Treatment, and Transportation of Dogs and Cats | 9 C.F.R. § 3.1 - 3.20 | This set of regulations contain the humane care provisions for dogs and cats under the Animal Welfare Act. | Administrative | ||
| ID - Fur - Chapter 30. Fur Farms | I.C. § 25-3001 - 3007 | ID ST § 25-3001 - 3007 | In Idaho, fur farming is again defined as an agricultural pursuit, and the animals are considered to be livestock for purposes of Chapter 25. Idaho gives its Animal Industries Division the right to inspect fur farms at any time. Violation of any of the statutory provisions or associated regulations incurs a fine of not less than one hundred dollars ($100) nor more than five thousand dollars ($5,000) for each offense. | Statute |