Anti-Cruelty

Displaying 181 - 190 of 962
Titlesort descending Summary
Center for Animal Law and Advocacy v. Bryon F. Maggard The Center for Animal Law and Advocacy based on Dayton, Ohio sued the defendant, Bryon Maggard, for his actions taken against his dog, Sadie. On March 17, 2002, the defendant beat Sadie with a skillet, tried to hang her with an electrical cord, and then set her on fire. The Center, which initiates civil litigation on behalf of companion animals and their guardians in an attempt to elevate the legal status of such animals, sued for compensatory damages in the amount of $25,000 to cover costs of Sadie’s veterinary treatment and rehabilitation, and asked the court to prohibit defendant from owning any animals in the future. It should be noted that, according to news accounts, Maggard (age 19 at the time of the assault) received 30 days in jail, was fined $2,000, and was ordered to receive anger and alcohol counseling.
Chambers v. Justice Court Precinct One


In this Texas case, a justice court divested an animal owner of over 100 animals and ordered that the animals be given to a nonprofit organization. The owner sought review of the forfeiture in district court. The district court subsequently dismissed appellant's suit for lack of jurisdiction. Under the Texas Code, an owner may only appeal if the justice court orders the animal to be sold at a public auction. Thus, the Court of Appeals held that the statute limiting right of appeal in animal forfeiture cases precluded animal owner from appealing the justice court order.
Chartered Institute of Environmental Health Guidance on the Interpretation of the Pet Animals Act 1951


Guidance to local authorities from the Chartered Institute of Environmental Health on the interpretation of the Pet Animals Act 1951 and, in particular, the legality of temporary pet fairs
Chase v. State Appellant and his wife were walking their two dogs when two neighbor dogs attacked the group. After the attack, appellant slashed the attacking dog's throat with a knife, which resulted in the dog's death. Appellant was then charged with and convicted of cruelty to non-livestock animals under Texas law. The appellant appealed to the Texas Court of Appeals and the case was reversed and remanded. The State filed a petition for discretionary review with the Court of Criminal Appeals. The issue before that court was whether § 822.013(a) of the Texas Health and Safety Code, a non-penal code, provided a defense to criminal prosecution. The court held that § 822.013(a)—which allows an attacked animal's owner or a person witnessing an attack to kill a dog that is attacking, is about to attack, or has recently attacked a domestic animal—is a defense against cruelty to non-livestock animals. The judgment of the Court of Appeals was therefore affirmed. The dissenting opinion disagreed. The dissent argued the goal of this statute was to protect farmers and ranchers against the loss of their livelihood by allowing them to protect their livestock from attacking dogs without fear of liability to the dog's owner, not to allow individuals in residential neighborhoods to kill a neighbor's dog after an attack with criminal impunity.
Chile - Cruelty - Animal Protection Act (in Spanish) Ley 20.380 is the is the Chilean Animal Protection Statute. It recognizes animals as living beings and establishes the norms for the “recognition, protection and respect of animals” in order to avoid unnecessary pain and suffering. This law punishes animal cruelty with imprisonment of up to 3 years. Labs, zoos, circuses, and other establishments that keep animals for exhibition and entertainment are allowed, so long as they have the adequate facilities according to the species and adequate safety for people. Animal experimentation in schools is allowed under this law. Rodeo, rein-back and equestrian sports are excepted from provisions of this law.
Chile - Cruelty - Criminal Code, Article 291 BIS and 291 TER Article 291 BIS establishes the penalties for cruelty or mistreatment against animals. Article 291 TER defines animal cruelty and mistreatment.
Chile - Cruelty - Ley 20.380 The animal protection statute applies to all animals and strengthens the penalties established in the criminal code for animal cruelty. Under this statute, animals are sentient living beings, that are part of nature. They must be treated respectfully and unnecessary pain must be avoided. Every person that owns an animal must provide food and shelter that is adequate to their minimum needs, and must not restrict their freedom of movement in an unnecessary manner. This is true especially if it causes suffering or if it alters the normal development of the animal. Some important aspects of this law include the establishment of the duty to teach children in schools to protect and respect animals. It prohibits animal experimentation in schools and regulates the production of livestock (confinement, breeding, transport, and slaughter). The livestock service (SAG) oversees the compliance of this law during the production of livestock, and the handling of animals by zoos, circuses, and veterinary centers. However, violations of the dispositions of this law carry out monetary fines only.
Chile - Cruelty - LEY 21.020 This law establishes the rights and responsibilities of those in possession of companion animals and establishes general duties such as adequate treatment, and meeting the needs of the animal according to their species. Some important aspects of this law include the prohibition of companion animal fighting when it is organized as an event, the training of animals to reinforce aggressive behavior, and the sacrifice of animals as a method of population control. It also prohibits the abandonment of animals and the selling of animals in the streets. It strengthens penalties for animal cruelty in the criminal code and Law No. N°20.380 (Animal protection statute), and imposes jail time and an absolute prohibition to possess animals for those found to commit animal cruelty.
Chile - Transport, animals - Decreto 30
Chimps, Inc., International Primate League, and Marguerite Gordon v. Primarily Primates, Inc.

Pages