Results
| Title | Citation | Alternate Citation | Agency Citation | Summary | Type |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| CT - Exotic Animals - Sec. 26-54-1. Wildlife pen specifications | CT ADC § 26-54-1, CT ADC § 26-55-6 | Regs. Conn. State Agencies § 26-54-1; Regs. Conn. State Agencies § 26-55-6 | Connecticut regulation 26-54-1 gives the wildlife pen specifications for any bird or quadruped possessed under the provisions of section 26-54 or 26-55 of the General Statutes. In addition, Sec. 26-55-6 replaced 26-55-2 in 2012 (the rule on quadruped importation). Sec. 22-55-6 now divides animals into Categories 1 - 4 based on the dangerousness of the animal to people, whether it is an endangered or threatened species, and even the risk it poses to and the native environment. The rule then states that no person except certain entities like zoos, museums, USDA licensed exhibitors, and research facilities may possess Category One Wild Animals. Restrictions are also imposed on other categories of animals. The rule also details the grandfathering process for owning a primate that weighs less than 35 lbs. | Administrative | |
| MO - Carthage - Breed - Sec. 4-5.1. Pit bulldogs prohibited. | CARTHAGE, MO., CODE § 4-5.1 |
In Carthage, Missouri, it is unlawful to keep, harbor, own or possess any pit bulldog as defined. An exception is made for pit bulldogs registered as of the effective day (Jan. 26, 1993), as long as the dog is properly confined or kept on a leash and wearing a muzzle. The owner must also take photographs of the dog for identification purposes. Any person violating the provisions may be fined up to $500. The dog may also be removed from the city. |
Local Ordinance | ||
| LOUISVILLE & N. R. CO. v. WATSON | 208 Ala. 319 (1922) | 94 So. 551 (Ala., 1922) |
On November 2, 1920, on a “moonlit night”, plaintiff was fox hunting by a railroad track when his dog was hit by the train. Plaintiff claimed that defendant’s employee negligently ran over his dog while acting within the scope of his duties as an operator of the train. The Alabama Supreme Court affirmed a jury award of $50, and held that it was proper for the plaintiff to show the excellent hunting qualities displayed by this dog to determine its market value. |
Case | |
| ID - Facility Dog - § 19-3023 Child summoned as witness | I.C. § 19-3023 | This statutes provides that when a child is summoned in a criminal matter, a parent, counselor, friend, or a facility dog may stay in the courtroom during the child's testimony, unless the court finds that the defendant will be unduly prejudiced. When a child is summoned to witness in any non-criminal matter, a facility dog will be allowed to remain in courtroom during the child's testimony. | Statute | ||
| NC - Disaster - North Carolina Emergency Operations Plan | NCEOP 2021 | The North Carolina Emergency Operations Plan is published by the North Carolina Department of Public Safety. The plan has a specific section on animal protection that is designed to help protect both domestic and wild animals. In the section on "scope," the plan says that "[a]nimal Protection actions will be aimed at all animals, whether owned, stray, or domestic, that may need help during disaster situations." | Administrative | ||
| OH - Hunting - Chapter 1533. Hunting; Fishing. General Provisions. | R.C. § 1533.03 - 1533.031 | OH ST § 1533.03 - 1533.031 | This section reflects Ohio's hunter harassment provisions. No person shall purposely prevent or attempt to prevent any person from hunting, trapping, or fishing for a wild animal. A person who is or may be reasonably affected by the prohibited conduct can seek an injunction. The companion statute also provides that no person shall purposely prevent or attempt to prevent hunting by creating noise or loud sounds through the use of implements that are intended to affect the behavior of the wild animal being hunted. | Statute | |
| MI - Constitutional Provisions - Protection of Natural Resources | M. C. L. A. Const. Art. 4, § 52 | MI CONST Art. 4, § 52 | This section declares the protection, conservation, and development of the state's natural resources to be of paramount public concern and the legislature shall provide for the protection of the air, water and other natural resources of the state from pollution, impairment and destruction. | Statute | |
| Kleppe v. New Mexico | 426 U.S. 529 (1976) |
The state of New Mexico challenged the constitutionality of the Wild Free-Roaming Horses and Burros Act after they were ordered by the U.S. government to recover several wild horses they had rounded up from public lands within their state and sold at auction in violation of the WFRHBA. The Supreme Court upheld the Act, finding it to be a valid exercise of federal power under the Article IV Property Clause of, which gave Congress the power to protect wildlife on state lands, state law notwithstanding. |
Case | ||
| Massa v. Department of Registration and Education | 507 N.E.2d 814 (Ill. 1987) | 116 Ill.2d 376 (1987) |
Dr. Massa sought judicial review of the gross malpractice finding and resulting license revocation in the circuit court after the circuit court reversed the Department's finding of gross malpractice as a conclusion against the manifest weight of the evidence. This finding arises from the death of plaintiff’s German Shepard, after Dr. Massa removed the dog’s healthy uterus and ovaries, while failing to treat the dog’s soon-to-be fatal thoracic condition. The Department's findings in this case could only be disturbed only upon Dr. Massa's showing that they are against the manifest weight of the evidence. The Court held that the record in this case was plainly sufficient to support the Department's determination of gross malpractice in that Dr. Massa ignored the serious nature of Charlie's lung condition and proceeded to remove reproductive organs which, at least at the time of surgery, he knew or should have known to have been healthy. |
Case | |
| Mack v. State of Texas (unpublished) | 2003 WL 23015101 (Not Reported in S.W.3d) |
The Texas Appeals Court affirmed the trial court's decision that failure to adequately provide for cattle such that they suffered from malnourishment constituted animal cruelty offense under Texas law. The court found that the evidence was legally sufficient to establish that malnourished cow was one of the many domesticated living creatures on defendant's ranch, and was therefore an “animal” under the state law. |
Case |