Me. Rev. Stat. » Title 17-A
Maine Revised Statutes

Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 17-A, § 510 (2026)

Cruelty to animals

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section ME-LEGlegislature.maine.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
(REPEALED)
SECTION HISTORY
PL 1975, c. 499, §1 (NEW). PL 1975, c. 638, §3 (AMD). PL 1975, c. 740, §69 (AMD). PL 1977, c. 35 (AMD). PL 1977, c. 169 (AMD). PL 1979, c. 120 (AMD). PL 1987, c. 383, §7 (RP).
The Revisor's Office cannot provide legal advice or interpretation of Maine law to the public.
If you need legal advice, please consult a qualified attorney.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 6 cases, 1976–1989 · leading case: People v. Allen, 657 P.2d 447 (Colo. 1983).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
People v. Allen, 657 P.2d 447 (Colo. 1983). “§ 752.21] (Callaghan 1981 Rev.); Minn.Stat. § 346.”
State v. Hudson, 470 A.2d 786 (Me. 1984). “The defendant, Peter Hudson, appeals from his conviction of cruelty to animals, 17-A M.R.S.A. § 510 (1983), after a jury trial on February 2, 1983 in Superior Court (Cumberland County).”
Opinion of the Justices of the Supreme Jud. Court, 355 A.2d 341 (Me. 1976). “17-A MRSA § 510, sub-§ 1, 1st sentence, as enacted by PL 1975, c.”
State v. Leonard, 470 A.2d 1262 (Me. 1984). “This criminal statute, which now defines a Class D crime, 17-A M.R.S.A. § 510(4) (1983), apparently finds part of its ancestry in the criminal statute involved in State v.”
State v. Guay, 534 A.2d 1325 (Me. 1988). “Holly Guay appeals the judgment of the Superior Court, York County, denying her appeal from a decision of the District Court finding her guilty of cruelty to animals (17-A M.R.S.A. § 510 (1983), repealed by P.”
State v. Libby, 556 A.2d 1099 (Me. 1989). “Randolph Libby appeals from his conviction of cruelty to animals, 17-A M.R.S.A. § 510 (1983) (repealed by P.”
— Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 17-A, § 510(4) — 1 case
State v. Leonard, 470 A.2d 1262 (Me. 1984). “This criminal statute, which now defines a Class D crime, 17-A M.R.S.A. § 510(4) (1983), apparently finds part of its ancestry in the criminal statute involved in State v.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.