Results
| Title | Citation | Alternate Citation | Summary | Type |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Com. v. Beam | 923 A.2d 414 (Pa.Super., 2007) | 2007 PA Super 106, 2007 WL 1112674 (Pa.Super.) |
In this Pennsylvania case, defendant appeals from convictions for licensing violations under the state's Dog Law and for violation of the Rabies Prevention and Control in Domestic Animals and Wildlife Act after a copier repair person was attacked by defendant's three German Shepherds. Because the Department of Health dog warden could not gain access to either question defendant about the dogs' vaccinations or quarantine the dogs, the victim had to receive a series of rabies shots. Based on the testimony of the dog warden that he finally saw vaccination certificates, and the fact the Commonwealth did not present any contrary evidence, the fines imposed under the Rabies Act were reversed. However, the court sustained the convictions for licensing violations under the Dog Law since defendant failed to show proof of licenses for 2005 (when the attack occurred). |
Case |
| WA - Eggs - Chapter 96.25. Washington Wholesome Eggs and Egg Products Act | West's RCWA 69.25.010 - 930 | Wash. Rev. Code Ann. §§ 69.25.010 - 930 | This collection of Washington laws prohibits the confinement of egg-laying hens in battery cages and mandates the use of cage-free housing. The laws also ban the sale of eggs in Washington from producers that house egg-laying hens in battery cages. These laws apply to egg producers in the state of Washington and out of state producers. | Statute |
| WY - Ecoterrorism - § 6-3-414. Trespassing to Unlawfully Collect Resource Data | W. S. 1977 § 6-3-414 | WY ST § 6-3-414 | This statute prohibits trespassing to unlawfully collect resource data. Collecting resource data is done by entering onto open land without an ownership interest or permission to collect information or photograph resource data (including animal species). Violation of this law is punishable by imprisonment of not more than one year and/or a $1,000 fine for the first offense, and imprisonment from ten days to a year and/or a $5,000 fine for subsequent offenses. | Statute |
| Carpenter v. State | 18 N.E.3d 998 (Ind. 2014) | --- N.E.3d ----2014 WL 5339365 (Ind. Oct. 21, 2014) | After being convicted by a Superior Court bench trial and having the Superior Court’s judgment affirmed by the Court of Appeals, defendant appealed the admission of evidence recovered from his home after officers entered it without a warrant in pursuit of an aggressive and bloody dog. The Supreme Court of Indiana found that the entry was unreasonable under the Indiana Constitution and that the evidence obtained pursuant to a subsequent search warrant was inadmissible. The Superior Court's judgment was therefore reversed. | Case |
| NY - Ordinances - Chapter 62. Of the Consolidated Laws. | McKinney's Town Law § 130 | NY TOWN § 130 | This New York statute provides that a town board after a public hearing may enact, amend and repeal ordinances, rules and regulations not inconsistent with law, including the restraining of the running at large of horses, cattle, sheep, unmuzzled dogs, whether licensed or not, and those authorizing the impounding and sale of the same for the costs of keeping, proceedings and penalty, or the killing of unmuzzled dogs. It also provides that towns may enact ordinances promoting the health, safety, morals or general welfare of the community, as long they are not inconsistent with existing law. | Statute |
| MI - Fighting Generally - Chapter 750. Michigan Penal Code. The Michigan Penal Code | MCL 750.49 | MI ST 750.49 | The anti-animal fighting provision prohibits conduct related to animal fighting, including but not limited to organizing or being a spectator at a fight and training or using animals for fighting. | Statute |
| Raymond v. Lachmann | 695 N.Y.S.2d 308 (N.Y. App. Div. 1999). | 264 A.D.2d 340; 1999 N.Y. Slip Op. 07127 |
Trial court allowed visitation in property dispute over cat between roommates. Later, that court determined it was not in the aged cat's best interests to be shuffled back and forth so revoked its decision, awarding it to the non-possessory roommate in a straight property analysis. The appellate court determined that it would be best for the cat to remain with the possessory party because of his age and the amount of time he had already been living there. |
Case |
| Night monkey in a small dirty cage | Slideshow Images | |||
| Colombia - Farm animals - Decreto 2113 de 2017 | Decreto 2113 de 2017 | Adds a Chapter to Title 3, part 13, 2nd book of Decree 1071, 2015 (Sole Regulatory Decree of the Agricultural, Fisheries, and Rural Development Administrative Sector), titled “Animal welfare for production species in the agricultural sector,” which establishes the general provisions and requirements for livestock Animal Welfare in the agricultural sector. Among other things, it establishes that Decree 1071, 2015 is framed based on the five freedoms (freedom from hunger and thirst; freedom from discomfort; freedom from pain, injury, and disease; freedom to express normal and natural behavior) and defines production animals as “vertebrates and invertebrates used in commercial production.” Some of the general aspects include that surfaces (for walking, resting, etc.) must be adapted to the species in order to minimize the risks of injury or transmission of diseases or parasites to the animals. The environmental conditions must allow for comfortable rest and safe and comfortable movements, including changes in normal postures, as well as allow the animals to show natural behavior. Allowing animals to be in social groups encourages positive social behaviors and minimizes injury, disorder, or chronic fear. When painful procedures cannot be avoided, pain should be managed to the extent available methods allow. Animal handling should promote a positive relationship between humans and animals and not cause injury, panic, lasting fear, or avoidable stress. Finally, the Colombian Agricultural Institute (ICA) is the enforcing authority in charge of imposing sanctions for violations of animal health and welfare regulations. | Statute | |
| Australia - Kangaroos - Shooting for Commerical Purposes | The National Code of Practice for the Humane Shooting of Kangaroos and Wallabies for Commercial Purposes sets an achievable standard of humane conduct and is the minimum required of persons shooting kangaroos and wallabies. It has been produced to ensure that all persons intending to shoot free-living kangaroos or wallabies for commercial purposes undertake the shooting so that the animal is killed in a way that minimises pain and suffering. | Statute |