United States
Displaying 3521 - 3530 of 4799
Title |
Summary |
|---|---|
| SC - Pet Sales - § 47-13-160. Fitness of registered companion dog or cat for sale; definitions; certifications; remedies. | This South Carolina statute provides that no pet dealer, pet shop, or pet breeder shall sell a registered companion dog or cat without providing to the purchaser a statement certifying that the dog or cat has received an infectious disease inoculation. If at any time within fourteen days following the sale and delivery of a registered companion dog or cat to a purchaser, a licensed veterinarian certifies the animal to be unfit for purchase due to a noncongenital cause or condition or within six months certifies an animal to be unfit for purchase due to a congenital or hereditary cause or condition, a purchaser has the right to elect one of the following options described in the statute. This section is apparently limited to registered dogs or cats. |
| SC - Restaurant, animal - 9-3 OUTDOOR PET DINING | This South Carolina regulation concerns outdoor dining with pets. The regulation first defines pets as domesticated cats, dogs, and ferrets. A retail food service establishment may allow customers to be accompanied by pets in an outdoor dining area provided the retail food service establishment complies with the requirements of this section and all other applicable sections of this regulation. Among other requirements include availability of cleaning supplies and sanitizers in the outdoor pet dining area, signage indicating that the area is "pet dining friendly," a separate outdoor entrance to the dining area, a requirement that owners keep pets restrained at all times, and a prohibition on pets on the table, countertop, or other food contact surface. |
| SC - Trust - § 62-7-408. Trust for care of animal | South Carolina's pet trust law was originally enacted in 2006. A trust may be created to provide for the care of an animal or animals alive or in gestation during the settlor's lifetime, whether or not alive at the time the trust is created. The trust terminates upon the death of the last surviving animal. |
| SC - Veterinary - Chapter 69. Veterinarians. | These are the state's veterinary practice laws amended in 2006. Among the provisions include licensing requirements, laws concerning the state veterinary board, veterinary records laws, and the laws governing disciplinary actions for impaired or incompetent practitioners. |
| SC - Wildlife - Chapter 16. Importation of Wildlife. | This set of South Carolina laws relates to the possession of live wildlife. A permit is required for the following: the family Cervidae, a nondomestic member of the families Suidae (pigs), Tayassuidae (peccaries), Bovidae (bison, mountain goat, mountain sheep), coyote, bear, or turkey (genus Meleagris), and a "furbearer," which includes, but is not limited to, red and gray fox, raccoon, opossum, muskrat, mink, skunk, otter, bobcat, weasel, and beaver. However, wildlife imported for exhibition purposes only by state wildlife departments, municipal zoos or parks, public museums, public zoological parks, and public scientific or educational institutions operated not for profit, and transient circuses are not required to procure a permit. Under another section, release of a member of the family Suidae (pig) into the wild is prohibited except as provided by law. Further, it is unlawful for a person to possess, transport, or otherwise bring into the state or release or introduce into the state any diseased wildlife or other animal that reasonably might be expected to pose a public health or safety hazard. Violating any permitting requirement under the chapter results in a misdemeanor with a mandatory fine of not more than $1,000 or up to 6 months imprisonment, or both. |
| SC - Wildlife - § 50-1-125. Wildlife defined; penalties for trafficking in wildlife. | These South Carolina statutes define wildlife as being a wild animal, bird, reptile, amphibian, fish, mollusk, crustacean, or product, egg, offspring, or dead body parts. It is illegal to buy, sell, or possess wildlife except as specifically allowed by this title. A violation is a misdemeanor, and the person could face a fine and/or imprisonment. |
| SC - Wildlife - § 50-1-270. Liability for gross destruction or injury to wildlife, | This South Carolina statute provides that any person or public or private entity is liable to the State for the unlawful gross destruction of or injury to wildlife, aquatic life, endangered or threatened species, or the lands or waters owned by the State. For a deliberate or grossly negligent act, the State must be awarded damages of three times the value of the resource affected, plus costs, including attorney's fees. This section does not apply to ordinary agricultural practices. |
| Scales v. State | Defendant, Jade Derrick Scales, was convicted of two counts of cruelty to non-livestock animals which constituted a state felony. Michelle Stopka had found two puppies in an alley and took them in. On February 8, 2015, Defendant confronted Stopka in her front yard holding a knife and wearing a mask and brass knuckles. Leonard Wiley, the man Stopka was residing with, confronted the Defendant and a brief confrontation ensued which resulted in both individuals sustaining a cut. Stopka soon discovered that both puppies had been sliced open and were bleeding. The puppies did not survive their injuries. Defendant’s sentence was enhanced to a second-degree felony based on the finding of use or exhibition of a deadly weapon during the commission of, or during immediate flight following, the commission of the offense and the fact that the Defendant had a previous conviction for a second-degree-felony offense of burglary of a habitation. Defendant was sentenced to seven years and a fine of $2,000. The Defendant subsequently appealed. The first issue raised on appeal by the Defendant was the deadly weapon finding which the the Court found was appropriate. The second issue regarded a jury instruction error. The Defendant contended that the trial court erred by failing to instruct the jury that a deadly-weapon finding is only appropriate when the weapon is used or exhibited against a human being. The Court found that although a deadly-weapon instruction should not have been given, the error was not egregious and therefore overruled the issue because a jury could have reasonably believed that the Defendant used the same knife to both inflict wounds upon the puppies and Leonard. The failure to provide such a jury instruction did not materially affect the jury’s deliberations or verdict. The third issue raised by the Defendant was that he was provided ineffective assistance of counsel. The Court overruled this issue as well. The Fourth issue raised by Defendant was that his prosecution was based on two identical indictments for the same conduct committed in one criminal episode which violated double jeopardy and due process principles. The Defendant did not preserve his claim of double jeopardy and the Court further found that two separate dogs were the object of the criminal act and each dog could have been prosecuted separately. No double jeopardy violation was found on the face of the record and, therefore, the Defendant did not qualify for an exception to the preservation rule. The fifth issue Defendant raised was that his sentence was illegal because the range of punishment for the offense for which he was convicted was illegally enhanced. The Court overruled this issue because his conviction was not illegally enhanced. The trial court’s judgment was ultimately affirmed. |
| Scent Identification Procedures in the U.S. Have Different History and Different Procedures From Those Conducted in Europe | Scent lineups, designed to use a dog’s behavior to establish that two scents, one from a crime scene and one from a suspect, derive from the same person, have been conducted in radically different ways in the U.S. and Europe. In the U.S., scent lineups are often performed outdoors, in fields or parking lots, while in Europe they have for decades only been conducted indoors, often in canine forensic laboratories. In the U.S., lineups of individuals, as opposed to scents taken from individuals, have been part of standard practice in some jurisdictions until recently, but this has not been done in Europe for decades. Tracking of a suspect through a police station has been accepted as a formal identification procedure in the U.S., but not in Europe. |
| Scharer v. San Luis Rey Equine Hosp., Inc. |
|