Summary: This set of Alabama laws concerns estrays (livestock running at large), the taking up of animals running on the highway, fencing requirements, and stock laws.
Summary: This Alaska statute provides that any dog that habitually annoys any wild deer, reindeer, sheep, cattle, horse, or other animal or bird either domestic or wild, or evinces a disposition which makes it likely that it will without provocation bite an animal or fowl, may be lawfully killed by any person when it is found at large. The owner or keeper of the dog, if known or reasonably identifiable, shall be notified and given reasonable opportunity to restrain the dog before it is lawful to kill it.
Summary:
For historical purposes only. Law has been repealed and/or replaced. These Regulations may be cited as the Welfare of Farmed Animals (England) (Amendment) Regulations 2002. The provisions mainly concern egg-laying hens.
Summary:
For historical purposes only. Law has been repealed and/or replaced. The UK's general animal welfare legislation affecting any animal (including fish, reptiles or amphibians) bred or kept for the production of food, wool, skin or fur or for other farming purposes.
Summary:
Even before passage of this important new directive setting down minimum standards for the protection of calves, the use of veal crates for rearing calves had already been illegal in the EU (since 2006). The new directive, however, passed on December 18, 2008, fleshed out older one, establishing new welfare minimums under which veal could be raised. According to the new directive, veal calves may, when very young, be kept in individual pens, but must be able to turn around and to see and touch other calves through perforated walls. Once they are more than eight weeks old, veal calves must be reared in groups. To guard against the nutrient-deficient diet veal calves have long been fed on factory farms—and continue to be fed on farms in the United States—European calves must, at least twice a day, be fed a diet that meets basic health requirements to ensure their bodies develop normally.
Summary: Section 6268 of Chapter 329 from the 1918 General Laws of Connecticut covers the unlawful injury to certain property of another. Specifically, the statute states the punishment for hurting, maiming, poisoning anther's cattle, ox, horse, and mule.
Summary: The General Laws of California from 1913, title 14, covers Malicious Mischief which includes sections concerning: Cruelty to Animals, Poisoning of Cattle, killing of birds in cemeteries and killing of gulls or cranes. The Cruelty to Animal section describes laws concerning horses, abandoned animal, torture and maiming of animals, use of animals in fights, and arrest without warrants. In addition, the section covers evidence, stallions, and impounding without food and water. The section about the killing of birds in the cemetery concerns also killing and detaining of homing pigeons. The last section about killing of gulls and cranes also concerns the destruction of eggs and nests. In addition, the section covers killing of elk and prosecution for these offenses.
Summary:
The Court struck down an Iowa law that banned certain producers from owning or controlling livestock in Iowa based on the Dormant Commerce Clause.
Summary:
Defendant-farmer filed a counterclaim for damages for the erroneous determination by the veterinarian that certain cow was not pregnant (plaintiff veterinarian used a "punch test" - where a fist is struck against the abdomen of a cow to determine pregnancy rather than the industry-standard rectal examination). As a result, defendant-farmer sold the cow for $170 versus the $550 he could have received for a pregnant cow. The Court found that it was erroneous for the circuit court to apply the doctrine of res ipsa loquitor, as diagnoses and scientific treatment are improper subjects for the doctrine. The mere proof that the diagnosis later on turned out to be erroneous is insufficient to support a judgment, the court stated.
Summary:
Defendant on appeal challenges six counts of animal cruelty. The court affirmed five counts which were based on a continuing course of conduct and reversed one count that was based upon evidence of two discrete criminal events.
