Results
| Title | Citation | Alternate Citation | Summary | Type |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| NV - Domestic Violence - Chapter 33. Injunctions. Orders for Protection Against Domestic Violence. | N. R. S. 33.018, 33.030 | NV ST 33.018, 33.030 | In Nevada, a knowing, purposeful or reckless course of conduct intended to harass the other such as injuring or killing an animal, is included in their definition of Domestic Violence. A victim can then get a Protection Order and enjoin the adverse party from physically injuring, threatening to injure or taking possession of any animal that is owned or kept by the applicant or minor child, either directly or through an agent. | Statute |
| Com. v. Linhares | 957 N.E.2d 243 (Mass.App.Ct., 2011) | 80 Mass.App.Ct. 819 (2011); 2011 WL 5517133 (Mass.App.Ct.) |
Defendant intentionally hit a duck with his car and was convicted of cruelty to animals. The conviction was upheld by the Appeals Court because all that must be shown is that the defendant intentionally and knowingly did acts which were plainly of a nature to inflict unnecessary pain. Specific intent to cause harm is not required to support a conviction of cruelty to animals. |
Case |
| Wild Horse Observers Ass'n, Inc. v. New Mexico Livestock Bd. | 363 P.3d 1222 (N.M., 2015) | Certiorari Denied, Oct. 13, 2015, No. 35,504. | This case dealt with a determination made by the New Mexico Livestock Board that a group of undomesticated, unowned, free-roaming horses (the Placitas horses) were “livestock” and “estray” rather than wild horses under the Livestock Code. The Wild Horse Observers Association filed suit against the Board, but their claim was dismissed by the District Court. The Court of Appeals held that 1) the horses were not “livestock”, as they had never been domesticated and therefore could not be “estray”; 2) the Board had a statutory duty to test and relocate wild horses captured on public land; and 3) the Plaintiffs did state a claim that was sufficient to survive the motion to dismiss. Reversed and remanded for further proceedings | Case |
| CO - Wildlife, nongame - Wildlife; Illegal Possession | C. R. S. A. § 33-6-109 | CO ST § 33-6-109 | Colorado law prohibits the taking, hunting, or possession of animals deemed property of the state or wildlife taken in violation of state, federal, or non-U.S. law (including bald and golden eagles), resulting in a misdemeanor with up to one year in jail and fines. Further, there is an additional penalty for the taking of "big game" species. It is also illegal to have in one's possession any nonnative or exotic species. | Statute |
| MT - Bite - Chapter 1. Availability of Remedies--Liability. | MCA 27-1-715 | MT ST 27-1-715 | This Montana statute provides that the owner of any dog which shall without provocation bite any person while such person is on or in a public place or lawfully on or in a private place, including the property of the owner of such dog, located within an incorporated city or town shall be liable for such damages as may be suffered by the person bitten regardless of the former viciousness of such dog or the owner's knowledge of such viciousness. | Statute |
| IL - Pet Shops - Chapter 225. Professions and Occupations. | 225 I.L.C.S. 605/1 - 22 | IL ST CH 225 § 605/1 - 22 | This section comprises Illinois' Animal Welfare Act. The Act is primarily aimed at regulating commercial pet dealers, such as kennels, breeders, and retail pet shops. The provisions include restrictions on the age at which both dogs and cats can be separated from their mothers (8 weeks). | Statute |
| RI - Impound - § 4-13-15. Collaring of dogs--Impoundment and disposition of uncollared dogs | Gen. Laws, 1956, § 4-13-15 | RI ST § 4-13-15 | This Rhode Island statute provides that every owner of a dog must collar his or her dog around its neck and distinctly marked with its owner's name and its registered number. Interestingly, it states that "any person" may cause any dog not so collared to be impounded in the public pound of the town or city where the dog is found. Further, if the dog is not claimed by its owner within a period of five days after the impoundment, the dog may be disposed of or destroyed. This statute also provides additional specific provisions for the towns of Glocester, West Warwick, and Exeter. | Statute |
| NC - Equine Activity Liability - Article 1. Equine Activity Liability | N.C.G.S.A. § 99E-1 to 99E-9 | NC ST § 99E-1 to 99E-9 | This act stipulates that an equine sponsor or equine professional, or any other person, including corporations and partnerships, are immune from liability for the death or injury of a participant, which resulted from the inherent risks of equine activities. New provisions added in 2013 now also protect a farm animal activity sponsor, a farm animal professional, or any other person engaged in a farm animal activity, including a corporation or partnership, shall not be liable for an injury to or the death of a participant resulting from the inherent risks of farm animal activities. However, there are exceptions to this rule: a person, corporation, or partnership will be held liable for injuries of an equine activity participant if he or she displays a willful and wanton or intentional disregard for the safety of the participant and if he or she fails to make reasonable and prudent efforts in ensuring the safety of the participant. | Statute |
| Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. v. National Marine Fisheries Service | 409 F.Supp.2d 379 (S.D.N.Y.2006) |
The Natural Resources Defense Council sought material from the National Marine Fisheries Service about an incident of mass stranding of whales under the Freedom of Information Act because the Council thought it had to do with navy sonar use. The Service did not want to release the materials, saying they were protected from disclosure because they were discussions of agency decision-making. The court required disclosure of most of the materials because purely factual matters are not protected from disclosure. |
Case | |
| Stolte v. Hammack | 716 S.E.2d 796 (Ga. App., 2011) | 2011 WL 4116153 (Ga. App., 2011); 311 Ga.App. 710 (2011) |
After home owner’s roommate was attacked by a pit bull inside the home, the victim filed suit against owner under the vicious animal and the premises liability statutes. The Court of Appeals held that, because the roommate knew about the dog’s vicious propensity to the same extent as the owner, the owner was not liable. Plaintiff must present evidence that the owner had superior knowledge of the dog's temperament for the owner to be liable. |
Case |