Results
| Title | Citation | Alternate Citation | Summary | Type |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| VA - Cruelty - Article 7. Animal Control Officers and Humane Investigators. | Va. Code Ann. § 3.2-6555 - 3.2-6569 | VA ST § 3.2-6555 - 3.2-6569 | These chapters relate to the qualifications and duties of animal control officers and the procedures for impounding stray animals. | Statute |
| OK - Game Animals - Part 4. Protected Game. § 5-410. Hawks; falcons; owls; eagles | 29 Okl. St. Ann. § 5-410 | OK ST T. 29 § 5-410 | Oklahoma law prohibits the knowing and willful killing or molestation of hawks, falcons, owls, or eagles, or their nests, eggs, or young. The only exceptions to this prohibition are the taking of a hawk or owl in the act of destroying domestic birds or fowl, or the use of hawks, owls, falcons, or eagles by licensed falconers. | Statute |
| State v. Claiborne | State v. Claiborne, 505 P.2d 732 (Kan. 1973) |
Animals -- Cruelty to Animals -- Cockfighting -- Gamecocks Not Animals -- No Statutory Prohibition Against Cockfights -- Statute Not Vague. In an action filed pursuant to K. S. A. 60-1701 in which the state seeks a construction of K. S. A. 1972 Supp. 21-4310 (cruelty to animals) making its provisions applicable to cockfighting, the record is examined and for reasons appearing in the opinion it is held: (1) Gamecocks are not animals within the meaning or contemplation of the statute. (2) There is no clear legislative intent that gamecocks be included within the category of animals protected by the statute. (3) The statute does not apply to or prohibit the conducting of cockfights. (4) As construed, the statute is not so vague, indefinite and uncertain as to violate the requirements of due process. |
Case | |
| Ley 25.577, 2002 | Ley 25.577 | Ley 25.577/02 prohibits the hunting and intentional capture of any of the cetaceans listed in the appendant of the same law. The authority in charge of enforcing this law is the Secretariat of Sustainable Development and Environmental Policy of the Ministry of Social Development and Environment of the Nation, which will establish the measures to minimize the incidental capture of the cetaceans listed in the appendant. The authority also establishes exceptions to hunting and intentional capture when they have scientific or educational objectives, or when the purpose is the conservation of the species. Ley N° 25.052 regulates the hunting and intentional capture of the orca species. | Statute | |
| Kanoa Inc., v. Clinton | 1 F. Supp. 2d 1088 (1998) |
Plaintiff cruise company filed a motion for a temporary restraining order and a preliminary injunction to halt scientific research of the defendant government, alleging standing under the National Environmental Policy Act ("NEPA"), the Marine Mammal Protection Act ("MMPA"), and the Endangered Species Act ("ESA"). |
Case | |
| TN - Equine Activity Liability - Chapter 20. Equine Activities--Liability | T. C. A. § 44-20-101 to 105 | TN ST § 44-20-101 to 105 | This act stipulates that an equine sponsor or equine professional, or any other person, including corporations and partnerships, are 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, corporation, or partnership 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 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 |
| NH - Dogs - Consolidated Dog Laws | N.H. Rev. Stat. § 3:25; § 4:13-s; § 466:1 - 466:54; 47:17; 207:11 - 207:13b; 210:18; 264:31; 436:99 - 436:109; 437:1 - 437:22; 437-A:1 - 9; 508:18-a; § 644:8-f | NH ST § 3:25; § 4:13-s; § 466:1 - 466:54; 47:17; 207:11 - 207:13b; 210:18; 264:31; 436:99 - 436:109; 437:1 - 437:22; 437-A:1 - 9; 508:18-a; § 644:8-f | These New Hampshire statutes comprise the state's dog laws. Among the provisions include licensing requirements, dangerous dog laws, and the rabies control code. | Statute |
| Mouton v. State | 2008 WL 4709232 (Tex.App.-Texarkana) |
Defendant was convicted of cruelty to an animal, and sentenced to one year in jail, based upon witness testimony and photographs depicting several dogs in varying states of distress. On appeal, the Court of Appeals of Texas, Texarkana, found that the trial court did not err in denying Defendant’s motions for a directed verdict or for a new trial to the extent that both motions challenged evidentiary sufficiency, and that ineffective assistance of counsel had not been shown, because the Court could imagine strategic reasons on Defendant’s counsel’s part for not calling a particular witness to testify on Defendant’s behalf, and for allowing Defendant to testify in narrative form during the punishment phase. |
Case | |
| Journal of Animal and Natural Resource Law, Vol. 13 |
Published by the students of Michigan State University College of Law Journal of Animal & Natural Resource LawVol. |
Policy | ||
| OR - Domestic Violence - 107.718. Court order when petitioner in imminent danger of abuse (allows pets) | O.R.S. § 107.718 | OR ST § 107.718 | Under this Oregon law, if requested by a petitioner who has been the victim of domestic abuse, the court may enter an order to protect a companion or therapy animal. This includes an order to "[p]revent the neglect and protect the safety of any service or therapy animal or any animal kept for personal protection or companionship, but not an animal kept for any business, commercial, agricultural or economic purpose." | Statute |