Results
Displaying 6111 - 6120 of 6637
| Title | Citation | Alternate Citation | Agency Citation | Summary | Type |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Ocean Mammal Inst. v. Gates | Slip Copy, 2008 WL 2185180 (D.Hawai'i) |
Plaintiffs sued the Navy over the use of sonar; the Plaintiffs feared that the sonar would kill whales and other marine life. This case dealt with the required production of documents the Defendant claimed were privileged and or work product material. The Court found that the Defendant must hand over the material to the Plaintiffs because the documents were not in fact privileged. |
Case | ||
| VT - Endangered wildlife - Chapter 124. Trade in Covered Animal Parts or Products | 10 V.S.A. § 5501 - 5508 | VT ST T. 10 § 5501 - 5508 | This Vermont chapter, enacted in 2022, relates to the trade in certain animal products. Under the law, a person shall not purchase, sell, offer for sale, or possess with intent to sell any item that the person knows or should know is a covered animal part or product. A covered animal part includes certain big cat species, elephants, giraffes, hippopotamuses, mammoths, mastodons, pangolins, endangered rays, rhinoceroses, sea turtles, endangered sharks, certain whales, and certain ape species. Exceptions exist for activities authorized under federal law, parts with "antique status" as defined, among others. For a first offense, a person shall be assessed an administrative penalty of not more than $1,000.00 nor less than $400.00. | Statute | |
| Archer v. State | 309 So. 3d 287 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2020) | 2020 WL 7409970 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. Dec. 18, 2020) | Defendant Tim Archer pleaded no contest to felony animal cruelty in Florida. Archer's dog Ponce apparently made a mess in Archer's house and, when Archer "disciplined" Ponce, the dog bit him, leading to Archer violently beating and stabbing the dog to death. Public outcry over mild punishment in the state for heinous acts of animal abuse led to "Ponce's Law," which enhanced penalties (although it did not retroactively apply to Archer). As a condition of Archer's plea agreement, both parties stipulated to a restriction on future ownership of animals as part of Archer's probation. On appeal here, Archer argues that the trial court erred in imposing these special conditions of probation. With regard to special condition 34 and 35, which prohibits him from owning any animal for the duration of his life and prohibits him from residing with anyone who owns a pet, Archer seeks clarification whether this prohibits him from residing with his ex-wife and children who own two cats, respectively. The court found that condition 35 would only be in effect for his three-year probationary term. Additionally, the court found condition 34 that imposes a lifetime ban on ownership exceeded the trial court's jurisdiction regardless of the open-ended language of Ponce's law. The animal restriction is not "a license to exceed the general rule that prohibits a court from imposing a probationary term beyond the statutorily permissible term, which in this case is five years." The case was remanded to the trial court to modify the conditions of probation to be coextensive with the probationary term. | Case | |
| European Union - Farming - Directive for Protection of Animals | Official Journal L 221 , 08/08/1998 P. 0023 - 0027 | COUNCIL DIRECTIVE 98/58/EC | This Directive lays down minimum standards for the protection of animals bred or kept for farming purposes. | Administrative | |
| AL - Ordinances - Article 4. General Police Powers | Ala. Code 1975 § 11-47-110, 117, 118 | AL ST § 11-47-110, 117, 118 | This set of statutes authorizes all cities and towns to enact local ordinances to prevent dangerous, unwholesome, or offensive conditions and to abate public nuisances. | Statute | |
| Protocol of Amendment to the European Convention for the Protection of Animals kept for Farming Purposes | The following are the additional protocol to the European Convention on Farm Animals. The definition of "intensive stock farming systems" has been elaborated on. Additions concerning the confines of artificial breeding and the feeding of harmful things to animals through food or drink are also included. | Treaty | |||
| Pete Mansour v. King County, a municipal corporation; King County Animal Control; King County Licensing and Regulatory Services | In this Washington case, Division One of the Washington Court of Appeals reversed a King County Animal Control decision declaring a dog vicious and ordering her removed from the county. This decision overrides the practice of a dog being presumed guilty until proven innocent in that county. The court found that for Mansour or any other pet owner to prove effectively present his or her case and rebut the evidence against him or her, due process requires that he or she be able to subpoena witnesses and present records. Mr. Mansour was prejudiced in his case because he was not allowed to do so and was not given sufficient notice for the hearing. | Pleading | |||
| King v. Karpe | 338 P.2d 979 (Ca.,1959) | 170 Cal.App.2d 344 (1959) |
Plaintiff sued for damages after a cow was sent to slaughter after a veterinarian had determined that she was incapable of breeding. The court recognized “peculiar value” of the cow where there was evidence that she was slaughtered before she had completed a course of treatment meant to restore her to brood status, that she could have produced for another five or six years, that the three bull calves she had produced were outstanding, that defendant took a half interest in them as the breeding fee and exhibited them at shows, that the cow's blood line produced calves particularly valuable for inbreeding, that plaintiff needed this type of stock to build up her herd, and that defendant had knowledge of these facts. The value of the bull to which the cow had been bred was also material to the cow’s actual value. |
Case | |
| IN - Cattle Slaughter - THE ANDHRA PRADESH PROHIBITION OF COW SLAUGHTER AND ANIMAL PRESERVATION ACT, 1977 | 11 of 1977 | The legislation, specific to the South Indian state of Andhra Pradesh, prohibits the slaughter of cows and the calves of female buffaloes. Other animals may not be slaughtered without a certificate from a competent authority. Slaughter may be carried out only in specified places. Offences under the Act are punishable with imprisonment or fines. The law protects acts done in good faith under this Act or its rules. The Act provides for the establishment of institutions taking care of cows. | Statute | ||
| Mangy Curs and Stoned Horses: Animal control in the District of Columbia from the beginnings to about 1940 |
|
Policy |
