Anti-Cruelty
Displaying 31 - 40 of 940
Title |
Summary |
|---|---|
| Animal Liberation Ltd v National Parks & Wildlife Service |
|
| Animal Protection Law - Mexico City | |
| ANIMAL VIOLENCE COURT: A THERAPEUTIC JURISPRUDENCE-BASED PROBLEM-SOLVING COURT FOR THE ADJUDICATION OF ANIMAL CRUELTY CASES INVOLVING JUVENILE OFFENDERS AND ANIMAL HOARDERS | |
| ANIMAL WELFARE LAW IN CANADA AND EUROPE | |
| Animal Welfare Protection at European level | |
| Animal welfare protection laws in the world | |
| ANOTHER WEAPON FOR COMBATING FAMILY VIOLENCE: PREVENTION OF ANIMAL ABUSE | |
| AR - Cruelty - Consolidated Cruelty/Animal Fighting Laws | This section contains the Arkansas anti-cruelty and animal fighting provisions. A person commits a misdemeanor if he or she knowingly abandons any animal subjects any animal to cruel mistreatment, fails to supply an animal in his or her custody with a sufficient quantity of wholesome food and water fails to provide an animal in his or her custody with adequate shelter, kills or injures any animal belonging to another without legal privilege or consent of the owner, or carries an animal in or upon any motorized vehicle or boat in a cruel or inhumane manner. Aggravated cruelty to a cat, dog, or horse is a Class D felony if the offense involves the torture. |
| AR - Initiatives - Proposed Initiated Act 1 (cruelty) | This ballot proposal sought to amend Arkansas' Animal Cruelty Act by making the knowing torture, mutilation, maiming, burning, poisoning, malicious killing, starving, or disfiguring of a non-exempted animal a crime known as "Aggravated Animal Cruelty." This offense would then become a Class D felony subject to enumerated penalties, including psychological counseling and forfeiture of the animal in question. This measure failed at the polls with 38% voting Yes and 62% voting No. |
| Archer v. State | 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. |