Results
| Title | Citation | Summary | Type | ||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Journals Available from the U.S. and the World |
Journal of Animal and Natural Resource Law (Michigan State University College of Law)
|
Policy | |||||||||
| Derecho Animal Volume 4 Núm 2 |
|
Policy | |||||||||
| PA - Cruelty - De protección a los animales domésticos | 2011 De protección a los animales domésticos |
This document provides a link to De protección a los animales domésticos (.pdf). |
Statute | ||||||||
| IN - Initiatives - Question 1, Right to Hunt and Fish Amendment | Question 1 | Question 1 is a legislatively referred constitutional amendment that appears on the 2016 general election ballot. The official summary states the following: "Provides that the right to hunt, fish, and harvest wildlife is a valued part of Indiana's heritage and shall be forever preserved for the public good. Provides that the people have a right, which includes the right to use traditional methods, to hunt, fish, and harvest wildlife, subject only to the laws prescribed by the general assembly and rules prescribed by virtue of the authority of the general assembly to: (1) promote wildlife conservation and management; and (2) preserve the future of hunting and fishing. Provides that hunting and fishing are the preferred means of managing and controlling wildlife. Provides that this constitutional amendment does not limit the application of any laws relating to trespass or property rights. This proposed amendment has been agreed to by one general assembly." A "yes" vote is in favor of such a constitutional amendment and a "no" vote is against amending the state constitution. | Statute | ||||||||
| Tilikum, Katina, Corky, Kasatka, and Ulises, Plaintiffs, by their Next Friends, People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, Inc | In this case of first impression, five wild-captured orcas named Tilikum, Katina, Corky, Kasatka, and Ulises (collectively, the “Plaintiffs”), seek a declaration that they are held by the Defendants in violation of Section One of the Thirteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States, which prohibits slavery and involuntary servitude. Plaintiffs were forcibly taken from their families and natural habitats, are held captive at SeaWorld San Diego and SeaWorld Orlando, denied everything that is natural to them, subjected to artificial insemination or sperm collection to breed performers for Defendants’ shows, and forced to perform, all for Defendants’ profit. As such, Plaintiffs are held in slavery and involuntary servitude. Plaintiffs also seek an injunction freeing them from Defendants’ bondage and placing them in a habitat suited to their individual needs and best interests. | Pleading | |||||||||
| U.S. v. Braddock | Slip Copy, 2011 WL 327416 (C.A.4 (S.C.),2011) |
Defendant-appellants appealed their convictions following guilty pleas to offenses relating to illegal cockfighting and gambling activities. On appeal, they challenged the denial of their motion to dismiss for selective prosecution or, in the alternative, for discovery in support of their selective prosecution claim. In particular, appellants contend that district court should have dismissed the indictment or granted leave to obtain discovery because they, as Caucasians, were prosecuted federally, while two Hispanic co-conspirators and thirty-six Hispanic people arrested in connection with another cockfighting ring in Hampton County, South Carolina, faced only state charges. The Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit, found that appellants failed to show that they were similarly situated to the Hispanic defendants who were not prosecuted on federal charges. |
Case | ||||||||
| Williams v. Hill | 658 So.2d 381 (Ala.,1995) |
In this Alabama case, a motorcyclist and passenger were injured when they collided with defendant's dog while traveling on public roadway and brought an action for damages. The Circuit Court, Elmore County granted defendant's motion for summary judgment and the motorcyclist and passenger appealed. The Court held that there is no recover at common law, as no negligence was shown. The Court would not accept the proposal that all owners should be charged with the knowledge that dogs will chase cars. “We hold that the owner of a dog may not be charged with the general knowledge that all dogs chase motor vehicles, and therefore that the law will not impute such general knowledge to dog owners in actions for injuries incurred. We, therefore, affirm the defendant's summary judgment.” |
Case | ||||||||
| Decision 09171-2015-0004-Ecuador-Do not publish | Case | ||||||||||
| CL - Marine mammals - Ley 20293 | Ley 20293 | The cetacean law prohibits the killing, hunting, capturing, harassing, keeping, possessing, transporting, disembarking, preparing, or carrying out any transformation process, as well as the commercialization or storage of any species of cetacean that inhabits or crosses the maritime areas of national sovereignty and jurisdiction in Chile. | Statute | ||||||||
| Vermont Laws: Act 34: 1846 | 1846 Vt. Acts & Resolves 34 | Act 34 from 1846 concerns the amendment of the statute entitled "Offences against private property." Specifically, the act concerns the statutes that covers cruelty to animals and larceny of animals. | Statute |
