Results
| Title | Citation | Alternate Citation | Agency Citation | Summary | Type |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| State v. Cleve | 980 P.2d 23 (N.M. 1999) |
Defendant was convicted of two counts of cruelty to animals, two counts of unlawful hunting, and negligent use of firearm. On appeal, the Supreme Court held that "any animal," within meaning of animal cruelty statute, applied only to domesticated animals and wild animals previously reduced to captivity, and thus, the animal cruelty statute did not apply to defendant's conduct in snaring two deer. The court also held that even if the Legislature had intended to protect wild animals in Section 30-18-1, New Mexico's laws governing hunting and fishing preempt the application of Section 30-18-1 to the taking of deer by Cleve in this case. |
Case | ||
| MA - Horse - § 3. Sleigh or sled; bells | M.G.L.A. 89 § 3 | This Massachusetts law states that no person shall travel on a way with a sleigh or sled drawn by a horse, unless there are at least three bells attached to some part of the harness. | Statute | ||
| US - AWA - House Debate 1966 AWA | House Resolution 821 |
This the debate in the House of Representatives for the initial adoption of the Animal Welfare Act in 1966. For discussion of Act see, Overview |
Administrative | ||
| OK - Dangerous - § 717. Owner of mischievous animal which kills person | 21 Okl. St. Ann. § 717 | OK ST T. 21 § 717 | This Oklahoma law states that an owner of a "mischievous animal" who knowing its propensities allows it to go at large or does not exercise ordinary care in keeping it, will be guilty of manslaughter in the second degree if while at large it kills a human. | Statute | |
| Commonwealth v. Brown | Commonwealth v. Brown, 66 Pa. Super. 519 (1917). | No. 16, Oct. T., 1916 |
The defendant was convicted of cruelty to animals for the use of acid on some horses' feet. The defendant appealed the descision because the lower court had found the Commonwealth's circumstantial evidence to be enough to submit the question of quilt to the jury. The Superior Court found that some of the evidence was improperly admitted by the lower court. Thus, the Superior Court reversed the judgement. |
Case | |
| Hopson v. Kreps | 622 F.2d 1375 (9th Cir. 1980) |
Action brought on behalf of Alaskan Eskimos which challenged the validity of the Department of Commerce regulations adopted pursuant to IWC Act. Plaintiffs claim is the the Commission exceeded its jurisdiction under the Convention when it eliminated the native subsistence exemption for Alaskan Eskimos. The Court reverses and remands the districts courts dismissal of the action. |
Case | ||
| Cleveland Hts. v. Jones | 2006 WL 256638 (Ohio App. 8 Dist.) | Slip Copy, 2006 WL 256638 (Ohio App. 8 Dist.), 2006-Ohio-454 | In this Ohio case, the defendant was convicted in the Cleveland Heights Municipal Court of keeping more than two dogs at his single-family residence contrary to an ordinance that limited the keeping of more than two dogs at a single-family residence (defendant was found to have three dogs, one of whom he said was "visiting" his daughter). In affirming defendant's conviction, the court found no merit to defendant's challenge that the term "kept" was ambiguous. Further, the evidence adduced at trial was sufficient to support defendant's conviction where the officer witnessed the dogs at the residence and defendant admitted to having three dogs in his home even without ownership of the third. | Case | |
| People v. Beam | 244 Mich.App. 103 (2000) | 244 Mich.App. 103 (2000) |
Defendant was charged with owning a dog, trained or used for fighting, that caused the death of a person and filed a motion to dismiss the case on the grounds that M.C.L. § 750.49(10); MSA 28.244(10) was unconstitutionally vague. The court granted defendant's motion, finding the terms "without provocation" and "owner" to be vague, and dismissed the case. The prosecutor appealed, and the Court of Appeals held that statute was not unconstitutionally vague. Reversed. |
Case | |
| CA - Import, dog - Chapter 1.5. Dog Importation: Health Certificates | West's Ann. Cal. Health & Safety Code § 121720 - 121723 | This chapter relates to importation of dogs into California for sale purposes. A person seeking to bring a dog into this state or importing dogs into this state for the purpose of resale or change of ownership shall obtain a health certificate for that dog, completed by a licensed veterinarian and is dated within 10 days prior to the date on which the dog is brought into the state. However, this chapter does not apply to a person who brings a dog into the state that will not be offered for resale or if the ownership of the dog is not expected to change or to dogs used military or law enforcement work. A person who violates a provision of this chapter is guilty of an infraction, punishable by a fine not to exceed $250 for each dog for which a violation has occurred. | Statute | ||
| OR - Vehicle - 811.200. Carrying dog on external part of vehicle; penalties | O.R.S. § 811.200 | This Oregon law states that a person commits a Class D traffic violation if he or she carries a dog upon the hood, fender, running board or other external part of any automobile or truck that is upon a highway unless the dog is protected by framework, carrier or other device sufficient to keep it from falling from the vehicle. | Statute |