Anti-Cruelty

Displaying 471 - 480 of 962
Titlesort descending Summary
McClendon v. Story County Sheriff's Office


A farmer was neglecting her horses and the entire herd confiscated by animal control officers.  The farmer brought a section 1983 claim against the animal control officers for acting outside of the scope of their warrant by removing more than just the sick horses.  The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court in part, holding the animal control officers were entitled to qualified immunity and seizure of all the horses was not unreasonable or outside the scope of the warrant. 
McDonald v. State


The act of finding a sick puppy and intentionally abandoning it in a remote area, without food or water or anyone else around to accept responsibility for the animal, was unreasonable and sufficient to support a conviction for animal cruelty.
McGinnis v. State


In an animal cruelty prosecution, the trial court should first instruct the jury on the definition of torture of an animal. Then, the court can permit the jury to determine whether the acts and circumstances of the case showed the torture of an animal.
McLibel


McDonald's sued two defendants in England in 1991 for defamation and lost major portions of the case, including the issue of animal cruelty. Mr. Wolfson discusses the "McLibel" case in relation to cruel common farming practices, and explores the contradiction that common farming practices can be found to be cruel.
McNeely v. U.S.



Defendant McNeely was convicted in a jury trial in the Superior Court of violating the Pit Bull and Rottweiler Dangerous Dog Designation Emergency Amendment Act.  On appeal, t




he Court of Appeals, held that the


Act did not deprive defendant of fair warning of the proscribed conduct, as the defendant here was


required to know that he owned pit bulls in order to be convicted under the Act; and the


prosecutor's improper comment was rendered harmless by the trial court's curative instructions.
MD - Cruelty - Consolidated Cruelty Statutes This Maryland statutory section comprises the state's anti-cruelty provisions. Under the section, "animal" means a living creature except a human being. "Cruelty" is defined as the unnecessary or unjustifiable physical pain or suffering caused or allowed by an act, omission, or neglect, and includes torture and torment. Agricultural, veterinary, research, and "an activity that may cause unavoidable physical pain to an animal, including food processing, pest elimination, animal training, and hunting. . . " are excluded from the purview of the act.
MD - Equine Transport - Subtitle 9. Transporting Horses. This Maryland section provides the requirements for transporting horses. The law states that "[a] person may not transport a horse in a vehicle that is not designed and constructed in a manner that at all times protects the health and well-being of the horse being transported." Of importance is the provision that limits the vehicle used to transport the horses to one level (e.g., no double-deck trailers are allowed). Violation of the law incurs a civil penalty in the amount of $500 per horse for the first offense and $1,000 for each subsequent offense.
MD - Humane officers - § 1-1314. Humane society or animal control officers; education and training requirements This Maryland law, added in 2021, creates education and training requirements for new humane and animal control officers. The training requires satisfactory completion of at least 80 hours of animal care and control coursework as described in the law. There are also continuing education requirements on an annual basis.
MD - Vehicles, unattended animals - § 21-1101. Unattended vehicle requirements This Maryland law relates to unattended vehicles (i.e., a person must not leave a running motor vehicle unattended). When a cat or dog is left in the unattended vehicle of an on-duty law enforcement officer or an animal control officer, the provisions of that subsection do not apply to the law enforcement officer or the animal control officer.
MD - Veterinarian Issues - Reporting Animal Cruelty These regulations state that if a veterinarian suspects animal cruelty, the veterinarian should do the following: (1) Note the condition of the animal upon presentation in the animal's treatment record; (2) Note the basis for suspecting cruelty in the animal's treatment record; and (3) Promptly report the suspected instance of cruelty, including animal fighting, to the appropriate local law enforcement or county animal control agency. A veterinarian who reports, in good faith, a suspected incident of animal cruelty is immune from any civil liability that results from this report.

Pages