Results
Title |
Citation | Alternate Citation | Summary | Type |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| SD - Marion - Breed - 9.0312 Vicious or Diseased Animals. | MARION, S.D., CITY ORDINANCES § 9.0312 (2002) |
In Marion, South Dakota, it is unlawful to keep, maintain or have in their possession or under their control any vicious animal, which includes Pit Bulls, Doberman Pincers, and Rottweilers. Police are authorized to impound any vicious dog or kill it without impounding it. A violation is a misdemeanor. |
Local Ordinance | |
| SD - Predator Control - Chapter 40-36. Predatory Animal and Reptile Control. | S D C L § 40-36-1 - 46 | SD ST § 40-36-1 - 46 | These South Dakota statutes pertain to predatory animal and reptile control. The Department of Game, Fish and Parks and the United States Fish and Wildlife Service work together to control coyotes, feral dogs, fox, prairie dogs, and other wild animals that are injurious to livestock, poultry, game, land, and the public health. Bounties may be paid for coyotes, if the bounty hunter has a license. | Statute |
| SD - Trap - 41-8-28. Trap robbing or injury as misdemeanor | S D C L § 41-8-28 | SD ST § 41-8-28 | This South Dakota law provides that any person who steals, damages or destroys a trap of another, or who steals, damages, or destroys animals, animal carcasses, or the pelts thereof, held fast by such traps, is guilty of a Class 1 misdemeanor. | Statute |
| SD - Trust - 55-1-21. Trust for care of designated animal. | S D C L § 55-1-21 - 21.3 | SD ST § 55-1-21 - 21.3 | South Dakota's pet trust law was enacted in 2006. Amendments to the law in 2018 provide that trusts for the care of a designated animal or animals are valid. | Statute |
| SD - Vehicle - 41-1-5.7. Disposition of deer and antelope killed by motor vehicle | S D C L § 41-1-5.7 | SD ST § 41-1-5.7 | This South Dakota statute states that if any deer or antelope is killed by a motor vehicle on a public highway, the person who desires to possess that animal shall notify a conservation officer. The conservation officer may give a dated and written authorization allowing possession of the animal at no fee. However, no part of an animal so obtained may be sold, bartered, or traded. | Statute |
| SD - Vehicle - SDCL § 41-1-12. Euthanasia of animal injured in motor vehicle accident | SDCL § 41-1-12 - 13 | SD ST § 41-1-12 - 13 | Any person who has seriously injured a wildlife animal or who comes upon a wildlife animal that has been seriously injured in a motor vehicle accident may euthanize the animal if that person has the means, skill, and will to euthanize humanely. | Statute |
| SD - Veterinary - Chapter 36-12. Veterinarians. | S D C L § 36-12-1 - 29 | SD ST § 36-12-1 - 29 | These are the state's veterinary practice laws. Among the provisions include licensing requirements, laws concerning the state veterinary board, veterinary records laws, and the laws governing disciplinary actions for impaired or incompetent practitioners. | Statute |
| Search results | Basic page | |||
| Sebek v. City of Seattle | 290 P.3d 159 (Wash.App. Div. 1,2012) | 2012 WL 6098265 (Wash.App. Div. 1,2012); 172 Wash.App. 273 |
Two Seattle taxpayers filed a taxpayer action lawsuit against the city of Seattle for violating Washington’s animal cruelty statute and Seattle’s animal cruelty ordinance with regard to a zoo’s elephant exhibit. After the lawsuit was dismissed by the King County Superior Court for lack of taxpayer standing, plaintiffs appealed the court’s decision. The appeals court affirmed the lower court’s decision because the plaintiffs’ complaint alleged the zoological society, not the city, acted illegally and because the operating agreement between the city and the zoological society made it clear that the zoological society, not the city, had exclusive control over the operations of the elephant exhibit. Significantly, the appeals court found that a city’s contractual funding obligations to a zoological society that cares and owns an animal exhibit at a zoo is not enough to allege a city violated animal cruelty laws. |
Case |
| Secretary of State for The Home Office v. BUAV and the Information Commissioner | [2008] EWHC 892 (QB | Appeal concerning the Freedom of Information Act 2000 and experiments involving animals. The BUAV had made an information request in respect of five research project licenses issued under the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986. The Home Office released limited summary information, relying on exemptions under FOIA to reason this; namely under section 24(1) which would prohibit information from being disclosed that had been given “in confidence.” The Court of Appeal upheld the decision that the Home Office was entitled to refuse BUAV’s information request. | Case |