Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
The term cruelty is often used in law and criminology with regard to the treatment of animals, children, spouses, and prisoners. [3] When cruelty to animals is discussed, it often refers to unnecessary suffering. In criminal law, it refers to punishment, torture, victimization, draconian measures, and cruel and unusual punishment.
The principle is a creature of case law and was expanded from the neighborhood law doctrine of aemulatio vicini under the jus commune. This principle departs from the classical theory that "he who uses a right injures no one" (= neminem laedit qui suo iure utitur ), instead embracing the maxim “a right ends where abuse begins” (= le droit ...
Cruelty towards animals protected under the Animal Welfare Act (2015) is punishable by a fine of 20–100,000 ringgit and/or imprisonment of up to three years. Cruelty towards animals protected under the Wildlife Conservation Act (2010) is punishable by a fine of 5–50,000 ringgit and/or up to one-year imprisonment.
A law review or law journal is a scholarly journal or publication that focuses on legal issues. [1] A law review is a type of legal periodical. [2] Law reviews are a source of research, imbedded with analyzed and referenced legal topics; they also provide a scholarly analysis of emerging legal concepts from various topics.
The Animal Welfare Act (Laboratory Animal Welfare Act of 1966, Pub. L. 89–544) was signed into law by President Lyndon B. Johnson on August 24, 1966. [1] It is the main federal law in the United States that regulates the treatment of animals in research and exhibition. Other laws, policies, and guidelines may include additional species ...
For the first time in Indian law, the Act defines "domestic violence", with the definition being broad and including not only physical violence, but also other forms of violence such as emotional, verbal, sexual and psychological abuse. [1] It is a civil law meant primarily for protection orders, rather than criminal enforcement.
United States v. Stevens, 559 U.S. 460 (2010), was a decision by the Supreme Court of the United States, which ruled that 18 U.S.C. § 48, [1] a federal statute criminalizing the commercial production, sale, or possession of depictions of cruelty to animals, was an unconstitutional abridgment of the First Amendment right to freedom of speech.
Intentional infliction of emotional distress (IIED; sometimes called the tort of outrage) [1] is a common law tort that allows individuals to recover for severe emotional distress caused by another individual who intentionally or recklessly inflicted emotional distress by behaving in an "extreme and outrageous" way. [2]