Results
| Title | Citation | Alternate Citation | Agency Citation | Summary | Type |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Claddie Savage v. Prator | 886 So.2d 523 (La.App. 2 Cir. 2004) | 2004 WL 2240592 (La.App. 2 Cir.) |
A Parish Sheriff informed game clubs the parish ordinance against cockfighting would be enforced, despite the fact that cockfighting tournaments had been held at the game clubs since 1991. The game clubs filed for and received a preliminary injunction against enforcement of the parish ordinance. The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court decision. Reversed by Savage v. Prator , 921 So.2d 51 (La., 2006). |
Case | |
| NC - Animal Shelters - § 153A-442. Animal shelters | N.C.G.S.A. § 153A-442 | This North Carolina statute authorizes counties within the state to establish, maintain, and appropriate available funding for animal shelters. The statute also describes the standards that animal shelters in the county should meet. | Statute | ||
| MD - Hunting, Internet - § 10-426. Hunting with guns or devices via Internet connection prohibited | MD Code, Natural Resources, § 10-426 | Md. Nat. Res. Code Ann. § 10-426 | This statute prohibits hunting via the Internet with the state of Maryland. Violation of the statute could result in a misdemeanor conviction, a fine not exceeding $10,000, imprisonment, and hunting license revocation. | Statute | |
| CO - Exotic Pets and Wildlife - Chapter 11. Wildlife Parks and Unregulated Wildlife. | 2 Colo. Code Regs. 406-11:1100 to 11:1116 | 2 CCR 406-11:1100 to 11:1116 | (Per introduction to regulations). In this introduction to chapter 11 we outline possession requirements for live wildlife as found in Colorado wildlife law. There is growing interest in the private possession of live wildlife. At the same time there is considerable confusion over the laws regarding such private possession. Colorado wildlife law generally prohibits the importation, live possession, sale, barter, trade, or purchase of any species of wildlife native to Colorado (33-6-113(1), C.R.S.). In addition, these same laws restrict or prohibit the importation and possession of exotic (non-native) wildlife (33-6-109(4), C.R.S.); and non-commercial (pet) possession of regulated mammals has been prohibited by these regulations since 1983. The Wildlife Commission also maintains a prohibited species list in Chapter 0. The possession of these species is severely restricted. | Administrative | |
| LA - Dangerous - Louisiana Dangerous Dog & Dog Bite Laws | LA R.S. 14:102.12 - 18; L.A. R.S. § 2771 - 2778 | These Louisiana statutory sections provide the state's animal control and dangerous dog laws. A dog becomes dangerous when (1) unprovoked, on two separate occasions within the prior thirty-six-month period, engages in any behavior that requires a defensive action by any person to prevent bodily injury when the person and the dog are off the property of the owner of the dog; (2) any dog which, when unprovoked, bites a person causing an injury; or (3) any dog which, when unprovoked, on two separate occasions within the prior thirty-six-month period, has killed, seriously bitten, inflicted injury, or otherwise caused injury to a domestic animal off the property of the owner of the dog. It is unlawful for any person to own a dangerous dog without properly restraining or confining the dog. Any citizen or officer may kill any dangerous or vicious dog, and no citizen or officer shall be liable for damages or to prosecution by reason of killing any dangerous or vicious dog. The section also provides laws on licensing, vaccination, and prohibitions on dogs running at large. | Statute | ||
| State v. Brown | 771 N.W.2d 267 (N.D.,2009) | 2009 WL 2506287 (N.D.), 2009 ND 150 |
In this North Dakota case, the defendant appeals from a criminal judgment finding she violated the Cass County Animal Control Ordinance after her neighbors reported her barking dogs. In her first appeal ground, Brown contended that the Ordinance constituted an unconstitutional delegation of power. The court disagreed, finding that Cass County adopted a home rule charter and thus had the power to create criminal penalties for violations of ordinances. Brown next argued that the legislature “has statutorily prohibited the county from attempting to regulate dogs as public nuisances.” Since the state has defined certain “dog activities” that constitute a public nuisance, the county is precluded from declaring any other dog-related activity a public nuisance according to defendant. The court found that this broad interpretation would preclude action by the county if the state has exercised any authority and would virtually eliminate the county's authority granted by home-rule authority. The court also rejected Brown’s argument that the Ordinance is unconstitutionally vague. The Ordinance provides that an animal that “barks ... in an excessive or continuous manner” is a public nuisance. The court held that its holding in Kilkenny, 2007 ND 44, ¶¶ 20-25, 729 N.W.2d 120, is controlling here, where the words excessive, continuous, or untimely have a common understanding and are not vague. |
Case | |
| Bal Harbour Village v. Welsh | 879 So.2d 1265 (Fl. 2004) | 879 So.2d 1265 (Fl. 2004) |
Defendant owned four dogs prior to the enactment of an ordinance prohibiting municipality residents from owning more than two dogs in one household. The municipality brought suit against Defendant for failing to comply with the ordinance. The trial court denied the municipalities prayer for permanent injunctive relief, but the Court of Appeals overruled the decision holding the ordinance could constitutionally be enforced under the police power to abate nuisance. |
Case | |
| DC - Cruelty, reporting - § 22-1002.01. Reporting requirements. | DC ST § 22-1002.01 | D.C. Code Ann. § 22-1002.01 | This District of Columbia statute requires that any law enforcement or child protective services employee who knows or has reason to suspect than an animal is experiencing cruelty, abandonment, or neglect shall provide a report of the abuse within the specified time. The statute also states that any employee who observes an animal at the home of a person reasonably suspected of child, adult, or animal abuse should report it. The statute also specifies what information the report must include for completion. | Statute | |
| Gregory v. City of Vallejo, et al. | 63 F.Supp.3d 1171 (E.D. Cal. 2014) | In this case, the plaintiff’s dog was shot by a police officer who was responding to the plaintiff’s call for police assistance in investigating a bank fraud matter. Upon arrival at the home, the officer entered the low-fenced front yard and two of the plaintiff’s dogs approached. The officer, the only eyewitness to the encounter, then shot and killed one of the plaintiff’s dogs. The plaintiff filed suit against the officer and municipality, and alleged, inter alia, violations of her Fourth Amendment rights, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and violations of state statutes. The court held that enough factual issues were disputed to deny the defendants’ motion for summary judgment, specifically that there was a genuine dispute as to whether the killing of the dog was reasonable. | Case | ||
| IA - Humane Slaughter - Meat and Poultry Inspection Act | I. C. A. § 189A.1 - .22 | IA ST § 189A.1 - 22 | This Iowa section, known as the Meat and Poultry Inspection Act, also contains the state's humane slaughter laws. For purposes of this section an approved humane slaughtering method shall include and be limited to slaughter by shooting, electrical shock, captive bolt, or use of carbon dioxide gas prior to the animal being shackle hoisted, thrown, cast or cut (except for the ritual requirements proscribed by the Jewish or any other religious faith). Any person who violates any provisions of this chapter for which no other criminal penalty is provided shall be guilty of a simple misdemeanor, which appears to include the humane slaughter provision. | Statute |