Results
| Title | Citation | Alternate Citation | Summary | Type |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| OR - Animal Definitions - Chapter 87. Statutory Liens. Liens Generally. 87.142. Definitions | O. R. S. § 87.142 | This is Oregon's statutory definitions for Animal Statutes. | Statute | |
| MO - Fish and Game - Chapter 252 (The Wildlife and Forestry Law) | V.A.M.S. 252.002 - 252.333 | MO ST 252.002 - 252.333 |
This chapter establishes the Missouri Department of Conservation, outlines the agency's scope of authority, and includes all of the state's wildlife and endangered species statutes. |
Statute |
| IA - Hunting - 481A.125A. Remote control or internet hunting--criminal and civil penalties | I.C.A. § 481A.125A | IA ST § 481A.125A | This Iowa law prohibits “remote control or internet hunting." This involves the acts of offering such services for sale as well as taking, or assisting in the take of a wild animal kept on a hunting preserve by remote control or internet hunting. A person who violates this section is guilty of a serious misdemeanor. A second or subsequent violation of this section is punishable as a class “D” felony. | Statute |
| Defenders of Wildlife v. Kempthorne | 2006 WL 2844232 | 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 71137 |
Ten non-profit groups sued the Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) alleging that the FWS had not adequately explained why the Northeast, Great Lakes, and Southern Rockies were not a significant area of lynx habitat under the Endangered Species Act, as the FWS had previously been ordered by the court to do. Additionally, the non-profit groups claimed that the FWS had violated Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act by passing regulations which made it easier for federal agencies to thin trees in lynx habitat under the Healthy Forest Initiative. The Court ordered the FWS to explain why the Northeast, Great Lakes, and Southern Rockies were not a significant area of lynx habitat, but found that the challenged regulations making it easier to thin trees in lynx habitat were permissible. |
Case |
| Koivisto v. Davis | 745 N.W.2d 824 (Mich.App., 2008) | 2008 WL 81559 (Mich.App.), 277 Mich.App. 492 (2008) |
Defendants, the Macaks, owned two dogs being boarded at Chieftan Kennels. Plaintiff was outside on her deck when the dogs entered her property and attacked her cats, one of which died later from its injuries. The plaintiff rushed to defend the cats and suffered multiple bites from the dogs. The trial court held that the plaintiff had “provoked” the dogs. The Court of Appeals reversed. “The dogs were already provoked and, in fact, were in a state of attack, for whatever reason when plaintiff responded to their behaviors while on her own property.” |
Case |
| NM - Equine Activity Liability - Article 13. Equine Liability | NMSA 1978, § 42-13-1 to 42-13-5 | NM ST § 42-13-1 to 42-13-5 | This act stipulates that any person, corporation or partnership is immune from liability for the death or injury of a rider, which resulted while the rider was engaged in an equine activity. However, there are exceptions to this rule: a person, corporation, or partnership will be held liable for injuries if he or she displays a conscious, reckless, or intentional disregard for the safety of the rider, and if the person, corporation, or partnership fails to make reasonable and prudent efforts in ensuring the safety of the rider. | Statute |
| MD - Humane Slaughter - Maryland Wholesome Meat Act | MD Code, Agriculture, § 4-101 - 131 | MD AGRIC § 4-101 - 131 | This section comprises Maryland's "Wholesome Meat Act." Included are laws related to licensing of slaughtering establishments, labeling of meat, and the state's humane slaughter provisions. The humane slaughter provisions state that it is the policy of the State to prevent inhumane methods of livestock slaughter at an official establishment. Humane methods include those by which livestock are rendered insensible to pain, by a single blow or gunshot, or by an electrical, chemical, or other rapid and effective means, before being shackled, hoisted, thrown, cast, or cut. Ritual slaughter defined by statute is also considered humane if done in compliance with the act. Use of a manually operated hammer, sledge, or poleax during a slaughtering operation is considered inhumane. Note that "livestock" here explicitly excludes poultry or other fowl. A person who violates this section is guilty of a misdemeanor and on conviction is subject to a fine not exceeding $100 for each violation. | Statute |
| Animal Law Index Volume 18, Part 2 |
Animal Law Review Volume 18, Issue 2 (Spring 2012)
|
Policy | ||
| Howle v. Aqua Illinois, Inc. | 2012 IL App (4th) 120207 (Ill.App. 4 Dist.) | 2012 IL App (4th) 120207 | As the result of a dog bite on the defendant’s rental property, the plaintiff suffered a torn cheek and irreparable damage to her ear. The plaintiff therefore attempted to recover damages from the defendant on the common law theory of negligence and through Illinois’ Animal Control Act. The trial court, however, dismissed the Animal Control Act claim and, later, granted the defendant’s motion for summary judgment on the negligence claim. Upon appeal, the appellate court affirmed the lower court’s decision, though it stated a motion for summary judgment was more appropriate then the motion to dismiss for the Animal Control Act claim. | Case |
| MS - Slaughter - Chapter 35. Meat Inspection | Miss. Code Ann. § 75-35-1 to 75-35-327 | MS ST § 75-35-1 to 75-35-327 |
These Mississippi statutes regulate meat products, animal slaughter, inspection and branding. Animals to be slaughtered must examined and slaughtered humanely, which means being “rendered insensible to pain... before being shackled, hoisted, thrown, cast or cut.” Meat and meat products must be labeled “Mississippi inspected and passed.” Any violation of the provisions may result in imprisonment and/or a fine. |
Statute |