Results
Title |
Author | Citation | Alternate Citation | Summary | Type |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Scotland - Wildlife - Nature Conservation (Scotland) Act 2004 | 2004 asp 6 | This Act makes amendments to the protection of wildlife under the Countryside and Wildlife Act 1981, and the Protection of Badgers Act 1992, in respect of Scotland. Wild animal protection is extended to include reckless as well as intentional acts. The Act also makes it an offence to disturb or harass a dolphin, whale or basking shark, and amends the provisions for enforcement. | Statute | ||
| Scotland - Wildlife - Wildlife and Natural Environment (Scotland) Act 2011 | 2011 asp 6 | This Act provides various protections to certain wild animals in Scotland, and makes amendments to the Nature Conservation (Scotland) Act 2004. | Statute | ||
| Scott v. Donkel | 671 So.2d 741 (Ala.Civ.App.,1995) |
In this Alabama case, there was an injury to a non-tenant child by a dog bite, and the defendant was a landlord. The attack occurred off the rented premises in the public street. The action was based upon negligence, that is, a failure to protect against a dangerous condition. The key to such a claim is the knowledge of the landlord. Plaintiff presented no evidence of the landlord being aware of the dog let alone that he knew of its vicious propensity. The court did not find a duty to inspect the premises and discover this information. The court did not reach the point that the attack occurred off the premises. The granting of the motion for summary judgment for the landlord was upheld. |
Case | ||
| Scott v. Jackson County | 403 F.Supp.2d 999 (D.Or.,2005) |
On July 22, 2003, plaintiff filed suit alleging violations of her constitutional rights under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, various state common law claims, and violation of the Oregon Property Protection Act (plaintiff's neighbor complained to animal control in May 2001 after hearing the rabbits "screaming and dying"). Plaintiff's claims arise from the seizure of over 400 rabbits from her property, and the subsequent adoption and/or euthanasia of these rabbits. Defendants move for summary judgment on grounds of qualified immunity, failure to allege the proper defendant, and failure to provide notice under the Oregon Tort Claims Act. In granting defendants' motion for summary judgment, the Court found that even if the officers' entry and seizure of plaintiff's property was unlawful, they reasonably believed their actions to be lawful, therefore affording them qualified immunity protection. Further, the court found no taking occurred where the rabbits were euthanized and/or adopted out as part of a initial criminal forfeiture action. |
Case | ||
| SCREENING WATER DIVERSIONS FOR FISH PROTECTION: A SURVEY OF POLICY, PRACTICES AND COMPLIANCE IN THE PACIFIC NORTHWEST | James D. Crammond | 2 Animal L. 101 (1996) | Unscreened surface water diversions damage and kill young fish. The decline of anadromous fish stocks in the Columbia Basin puts a premium on protection of juvenile salmon. State laws require screens on surface water diversions, but compliance has been poor. The Endangered Species Act and the Northwest Power Act have motivated and funded a massive remedial screening effort since 1991. Effective screens, installed with ratepayer and taxpayer funds, have dramatically improved fish protection at diversions. However, many harmful diversions remain. This paper concludes that, although progress has been swift full compliance in 1996 is problematic. Greater incentives and enforcement are essential to complete screening in the Columbia Basin. After full compliance, maintenance and eventual replacement of screens are essential to the screening program's continued success. To avoid another Endangered Species Act "train wreck " states must transfer their screening experience to other watersheds in order to improve conditions for their native and resident fish. | Article | |
| SD - Assistance Animal - Assistance Animal/Guide Dog Laws | S D C L § 20-13-23.1 - 4, 32-27-7 - 8; 40-1-38 - 40; 43-32-33 - 36 | SD ST § 20-13-23.1 - 4, 32-27-7 - 8; 40-1-38 - 40; 43-32-33 - 36 | The following statutes comprise the state's relevant assistance animal and guide dog laws. | Statute | |
| SD - Bite - Chapter 40-34. Dog Licenses and Regulation (Vicious Dog Provisions) | S D C L § 40-34-13 to 16 | SD ST § 40-34-13 to 16 | This South Dakota statute provides that a vicious dog, defined as any dog which, when unprovoked, in a vicious manner approaches in apparent attitude of attack, or bites, or otherwise attacks a human being including a mailman, meter reader, serviceman, etc. who is on private property by reason of permission of the owner, is a public nuisance. However, no dog may be declared vicious if an injury or damage is sustained to any person who was committing a willful trespass or other tort upon premises occupied by the owner or keeper of the dog, or who was teasing, tormenting, abusing or assaulting the dog or was committing or attempting to commit a crime. | Statute | |
| SD - Cruelty - Consolidated Cruelty Statutes | S D C L § 9-29-11; S D C L § 40-1-1 - 41; S D C L § 40-2-1 - 9; S D C L § 43-39-12, 12.1; SDCL § 22-22-42, 43, 44 | SD ST § 9-29-11; SD ST § 40-1-1 - 41; SD ST § 40-2-1 - 9; SD ST § 43-39-12, 12.1; SD ST § 22-22-42, 43, 44 | These South Dakota statutes comprise the state's anti-cruelty and animal fighting provisions. "Animal," any mammal, bird, reptile, amphibian, or fish, except humans. "Cruelty” means to intentionally, willfully, and maliciously inflict gross physical abuse on an animal that causes prolonged pain, that causes serious physical injury, or that results in the death of the animal. Any person who subjects an animal to cruelty is guilty of a Class 6 felony. “Neglect,” means to fail to provide food, water, protection from the elements, adequate sanitation, adequate facilities, or care generally considered to be standard and accepted for an animal's health and well-being consistent with the species, breed, physical condition, and type of animal. Any person who neglects an animal is guilty of a Class 1 misdemeanor. Exemptions include regulated scientific experiments using live animals and the destruction of dangerous animals. | Statute | |
| SD - Dogs - Consolidated Dog Laws | S D C L §9-29-12; S D C L § 40-1-41; S D C L § 40-34-1 - 16; S D C L 40-12-1 - 6; S D C L § 41-6-78; § 41-8-15; S D C L § 41-15-14; S D C L § 41-17-18.1 | These South Dakota statutes comprise the state's dog laws. Among the provisions include licensing requirements, vicious dog laws, and rabies vaccination provisions. | Statute | ||
| SD - Ecoterrorism - Chapter 40-38. Protection of Animal Facilities | S D C L § 40-38-1 - 5 | SD ST § 40-38-1 - 5 | This chapter comprises South Dakota's animal enterprise interference laws. Under the section, it is illegal for a person to intentionally damage or destroy an animal facility, an animal, or property in or on the animal facility; exercise control over the animal facility or an animal located therein; enter the animal facility with the intent to commit prohibited acts; enter an animal facility and remain concealed with the intent to commit prohibited acts; or intentionally release an animal on an animal facility. Violation is a misdemeanor of varying degrees if the damaged property value is less than $1,000 and a Class 4 felony if above $1,000. Any person who violates subdivisions 40-38-2(2) to (5), inclusive, is guilty of a Class 4 felony. | Statute |