Results
Displaying 5751 - 5760 of 6638
| Title | Citation | Alternate Citation | Agency Citation | Summary | Type |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Colombia - Slaughter - Decreto 1500, 2007 | Decreto 1500 de 2007 | This decreto establishes the technical rules that frame the system of inspections, supervision and controls over meat processed for human consumption. These health requirements must be met at every step of the chain, from primary production to marketplaces. Article 31, lays out the requirements for the antemortem and postmortem inspection of animals in slaughterhouses. Numeral 3 of this article establishes that slaughter methods must be humane. According to this article, animals must be slaughtered through non-cruel methods. Animals have to be appropriately stunned before being slaughtered. Slaughter must be done following correct techniques, avoiding unnecessary risks for the operator and suffering of the animal. The methods utilized must be authorized by the National Institute for Drug and Food Supervision (INVIMA). This article establishes ritual religions as the only exception to humane slaughter. This process must be supervised and approved by the Invima. | Statute | ||
| MS - Exotic pet - Chapter 8. Importation, Sale and Possession of Inherently Dangerous Wild Animals. | Miss. Code Ann. § 49-8-1 to 49-8-19 | MS ST § 49-8-1 to 49-8-19 | This Mississippi chapter states that it is in the public interest to ensure the public health, safety and welfare by strictly regulating the importation, sale, transfer and possession of those wild animals inherently dangerous to humans. Several species are listed under this section as inherently dangerous to humans, including non-human primates, wolves, bears, hyenas, big cats, and hippopotamus, among others. It is unlawful for a person to import, transfer, sell, purchase or possess any wild animal classified inherently dangerous by law or regulation unless that person holds a permit. Those persons who were in possession of such animals on or before May 1, 1997 were able to continue possession provided that they complied with the permit process. Prior to the issuance of a permit, the applicant must have provided proof of liability insurance in the amount of $100,000.00 for each wild animal up to a maximum of $1,000,000.00. | Statute | |
| CO - Wildlife - Rules for Possession of Terrestrial Wildlife. | 2 CO ADC 406-0:006 to 0:009 | 2 CCR 406-0:006 to 0:009 | This set of regulations comprises the Colorado Department of Natural Resources general rules for the importation, transportation, possession, and release of terrestrial wildlife. | Administrative | |
| IL - Equine Liability Act - Equine Activity Liability Act | 745 I.L.C.S. 47/1 - 47/999 | IL ST CH 745 § 47/1 - 47/999 | This act stipulates that an equine sponsor or professional, 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 | |
| State v. Gruntz | 273 P.3d 183 review denied (Or.App.,2012) | 2012 WL 403248 Or. App. 11, 932; review denied, 352 Or. 76, 282 P.3d 1 (2012) |
Defendant moved to suppress evidence after being charged with multiple counts of animal neglect. The Court of Appeals held that the warrant affidavit permitted reasonable inference that neglect continued to exist at time of warrant application. The warrant affiant stated her observations four months prior to the warrant application that horses appeared to be malnourished and severely underweight. |
Case | |
| People v. McKnight | 302 N.W.2d 241 (Mich. 1980) | 102 Mich. App. 581 (Mich. 1980) |
Defendant was convicted of willfully and maliciously killing animals for kicking a dog to death. Defendant argued on appeal that dogs were not included under the statute punishing the willful and malicious killing of horses, cattle, or other beasts of another. The court found that the term "other beasts" includes dogs. Further, defendant argued that the evidence was insufficient to support a finding of the requisite willful and malicious intent to kill the dog. The court disagreed and held that inferences from the surrounding circumstances were sufficient to support a finding of malicious intent. The court affirmed his convictions. |
Case | |
| OK - Rehabilitation, wildlife - Chapter 25 Wildlife Rules | OK ADC 800:25-38-1 to 12 | Okla. Admin. Code 800:25-38-1 to 12 | The following Oklahoma regulations detail that a license is needed for any person who wishes to rehabilitate wildlife. A person must renew this license annually for a fee of ten (10) dollars unless that person has violated any of these provisions or was found not to be taking proper care of the animal during the animal's rehabilitation. In such a case, a person must wait a minimum of one year before that person can renew his or her license. These regulations also relieve the Department of Wildlife from liability and costs incurred by the licensee. Additionally, these regulations require a licensee to report any listed endangered or threatened species; require a record of veterinary visits; require a record of the type of species lodged at the facility; require proper facilities; and require proper release of rehabilitated animals and proper disposal of animals that cannot be rehabilitated. | Administrative | |
| MI - Domestic Violence - 600.2950. Personal protection orders; current or former | M. C. L. A. 600.2950 | MI ST 600.2950 | This Michigan law relates to an action for a personal protection order to restrain/enjoin several categories of individuals: (1) a spouse or former spouse; (2) a person with whom the petitioner has a child in common; (3) a person in a dating relationship with petitioner; or (4) an individual who resided or is residing in the same household as the petitioner. Effective August 1, 2016, the order may now restrain or enjoin those mentioned individuals from engaging in the following actions if that person has the intent to cause the petitioner mental distress or to exert control over the petitioner with respect to an animal in which the petitioner has an ownership interest (subsection (1)(k)): (1) injuring, killing, torturing, neglecting, or threatening to injure, kill, torture, or neglect the animal; (2) removing the animal from the petitioner's possession; or (3) retaining or obtaining possession of the animal. Section 29 describes the criteria under which a petitioner is deemed to have an ownership interest in an animal. | Statute | |
| ME - Endangered Species - Chapter 925. Fish and Wildlife Management and Research. | 12 M.R.S.A. § 12808 | ME ST T. 12 § 12808 | Maine revised its endangered species law in 2019. "Take" means the he act or omission that results in the death of any endangered or threatened species. There are two types of offenses based on whether the conduct is negligent or intentional. Negligent acts concerning an endangered species result in a Class E crime with a fine of $1,000 which may not be suspended. Intentional acts concerning an endangered species result in a Class D crime with a fine of $2,000 which may not be suspended. Each type of taking lists what is prohibited with regard to endangered species, including hunting, possessing, and feeding/baiting. | Statute | |
| FL - Endangered Species - Chapter 379. Fish and Wildlife Conservation. | West's F. S. A. § 379.411 | FL ST § 379.411 (Renumbered as 379.411 by Laws 2008, c. 2008-247, § 178, eff. July 1, 2008) | This statute prohibits the intentional killing or wounding of any animal, or the eggs or nest of any animal, listed as threatened, endangered, or of special concern, making it a Level Four violation under s. 379.401. The bald eagle has been designated under this provision. | Statute |