Results
| Title | Citation | Alternate Citation | Summary | Type |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Anderson v Ah Kit | [2004] WASC 194 |
In proceedings for defamation, the plaintiff alleged that the defendant published information giving rise to the imputations that the plaintiff left animals to starve and that the Northern Territory government had to intervene to feed those animals. The defendant pleaded, inter alia, the defences of Polly Peck and fair comment. The Court ruled that the Polly Peck defense was sufficiently justified to survive the plaintiff's strike out application. It was held, however, that although animal welfare generally was a matter of public interest, the welfare of some animals held on private property was not, and could not be made by extensive media coverage, a matter of public interest. |
Case | |
| DE - Fox - § 791. Possession of red fox whelps | 7 Del.C. § 791 | DE ST TI 7 § 791 | This Delaware statute permits the taking and possession of the red fox whelp between April 1 and August 15 of each year subject to certain criteria. | Statute |
| IA - Racing - 99D.1 to 99D.28. Pari-Mutuel Wagering | I.C.A. § 99D.1 - 99D.28 | IA ST § 99D.1 - 99D.28 | This act legalizes and only applies to pari-mutuel wagering on dog and horse races in the state of Iowa. The act creates a state racing and gaming commission which has full jurisdiction to investigate applicants, adopt standards, and regulate all horse and dog races governed by the act. Organizations that wish to conduct horse and dog racing must apply to the commission for a license and meet the requirements. Tracks that are licensed to race dogs are required to maintain a racing dog adoption program. | Statute |
| WA - Fur - Chapter 77.15. Fish and Wildlife Enforcement Code (Unlawful Trapping Provisions) | West's RCWA 77.15.190 - 194 | WA ST 77.15.190 - 194 | This set of Washington laws describes unlawful trapping. A person is guilty of misdemeanor unlawful trapping if the person sets out traps without the necessary licenses or permits; violates any rule on seasons or bag limits; or fails to identify the owner of the traps or devices with a tag or inscription. The director may revoke the trapper's license of a person placing unauthorized traps on private property and may remove those traps. It is unlawful to use or authorize the use of any steel-jawed leghold trap, neck snare, or other body-gripping trap to capture any mammal for recreation or commerce in fur except as provided in Section 77.15.194. | Statute |
| AZ - Phoenix - Chapter 8 - ANIMALS. | Chapter 8 |
The following comprises Phoenix, Arizona's animal-related ordinances. Topics include the keeping of reptiles or wild animals, vicious animal provisions, and sections addressing animal cruelty. An entire article (Article IV) deals with the confinement of animals in motor vehicles. |
Local Ordinance | |
| PA - Endangered Species - Chapter 104. Wild Resource Conservation | 34 Pa.C.S.A. § 2167; 34 Pa.C.S.A. § 2924; 34 Pa.C.S.A. § 925; 32 P.S. §§ 5301 - 14 | This set of Pennsylvania laws comprises the state's endangered species provisions. Section 2167 makes it unlawful for any person to bring into or remove from this Commonwealth, or to possess, transport, capture or kill, or attempt, aid, abet or conspire to capture or kill, any wild bird or wild animal, or any part thereof, or the eggs of any wild bird, which are endangered or threatened species. It is the duty of every officer having authority to enforce this title to seize all wild birds or wild animals, or any part thereof, or the eggs of any wild bird, which have been declared endangered or threatened. Any commerce in endangered species is also prohibited. For a first violation, a person may have his or her hunting privileges revoked for 7 years. A second violation during that period may result in forfeiture of the privilege to hunt for 10 years. A third violation brings the forfeiture to 15 years. | Statute | |
| Crisman v. Hallows | 999 P.2d 1249 (Utah App.,2000) | 393 Utah Adv. Rep. 9, 2000 UT App 104 (2000) |
Plaintiff dog owners appeal the trial court's entry of summary judgment in favor of defendant Ted Hallows. Hallows. a Division of Wildlife Resources employee, shot the dogs after they got loose from plaintiffs' backyard. While the factual accounts of the shooting differed, Hallows asserted that he shot the dogs within the scope of his employment and was therefore protected under the Governmental Immunity Act. On appeal, the court first found that plaintiffs may maintain an action against Hallows for conduct outside the scope of his employment and this claim was not barred by their admitted failure to comply with the Immunity Act's notice of claim and statute of limitations requirements. Further, as to plaintiffs' claims that Hallows was not acting within his scope of employment when the shooting occurred, there was sufficient evidence to raise a genuine issue of material fact. |
Case |
| Chile - Hunting - Ley 19473, 1996 | Ley 19473, 1996 | This law regulates the hunting, capture, breeding, conservation and sustainable use of wildlife animals, with exception of those species whose preservation is regulated by the General Law on Fisheries and Aquaculture. | Statute | |
| TX - Cruelty - Chapter 829. Animal Control Officer Training | V. T. C. A., Health & Safety Code § 829.001 - 009 | TX HEALTH & S § 829.001 - 009 | This chapter concerns the appointment of animal control officers in Texas. The chapter requires that an animal control officer complete training, which includes at least a 12-hour basic animal control course and subsequent continuing education. | Statute |
| Janota-Bzowska v. Lewis | 1997CarswellBC1957 | 96 B.C.A.C. 70, 155 W.A.C. 70, 43 B.C.L.R. (3d) 352, [1997] B.C.J. No. 2053 |
The respondent Janota-Bzowska was an invited guest at the home of the appellant Lewises, where another guest (appellant Holtzman) had tied his Labrador dog outside; the dog lunged at the respondent, causing her to fall and break her finger. A trial court earlier found both dog-owner and home-owners liable to Janota-Bzowska under the doctrines of scienter (strict liabilty) and negligence. On appeal, the court held that there was insufficient evidence to establish that the dog had a propensity to lunge at people, or that the owner knew of such propensity, although the dog was known to chase deer. However, this was not sufficient to allow recovery under scienter. On the issue of negligence, the court also held that the dog's behaviour being 'unexpected and out of character' showed no suggestion of a risk for which the owner had failed to take reasonable precautions, so there was no negligence shown. |
Case |