Results
| Title | Citation | Alternate Citation | Summary | Type |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| AU - Threatened Species Protection Act 1995 (QLD) | Threatened Species Protection Act 1995 |
The Nature Conservation Act 1992 is an act of the Parliament of Queensland that provides for the legislative protection of Queensland's threatened fauna and flora. As originally published, it provided for native animals and plants to be declared presumed extinct, endangered, vulnerable, rare or common. In 2004 the act was amended to more closely align with the International Union for the Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources categories: presumed extinct was changed to extinct in the wild and common was changed to least concern. |
Statute | |
| KS - Maize - Breed - Pit Bull Ordinance | MAIZE, KS., CITY CODE, §§ 2-401 - 2-420 (2003) |
In Maize, Kansas, it is unlawful to keep, harbor, own or possess any pit bull dog unless the dog was registered on the date of publication of this article. A registered dog is subject to requirements, such as the uses of a leash and muzzle if not confined and “Beware of Dog” signs. Dogs that are a subject of a violation may be seized, impounded, and even killed, if necessary. A violation may result in a $200 to $500 fine and/or imprisonment for up to 30 days, as well as removal of the dog from the city. |
Local Ordinance | |
| Anderson v. Christopherson | 816 N.W.2d 626 (Minn. 2012) | 2012 WL 2913222 (Minn.) |
This appeal asks two questions: whether defendant-dog owners (Christophersons) were strictly liable under Minn.Stat. § 347.22 for plaintiff Anderson's injuries suffered when he attempted to break up a fight between defendants' and plaintiff's dogs; and (2) whether one of the defendants was an "owner" for purposes of this law. In the case at hand, the court found that the events leading to Anderson's injury could produce three reasonable alternative inferences such that summary judgment was inappropriate. The court found there was an issue whether the father Dennis Christopherson was "harboring" the dog at the home for purposes of the animal owner liability statute. |
Case |
| SAMUEL ZIMMERMAN v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA AND SECRETARY OF AGRICULTURE | 57 Agric. Dec. 869 (1998) | 1998 WL 1806372 (U.S.D.A.) | Agency's choice of sanction is not to be overturned unless it is unwarranted by law, unjustified by facts, or represents abuse of discretion; sanction is not rendered invalid in particular case because it is more severe than sanctions imposed in other cases. | Case |
| WY - Livestock - Chapter 30. Offenses Concerning Livestock and Other Animals. | W. S. 1977 § 11-30-101 to 115 | WY ST § 11-30-101 to 115 | This Wyoming chapter of laws covers such offenses from misbranding livestock to a prohibition on the desertion and abandonment of sheep. Specific horse offenses are detailed, such as taking possession of any horse or mule found running at large on the open range with the intent of working or riding it, and the use of horses by a stable keeper without consent of the owner. The chapter also makes it a misdemeanor punishable by a fine of not more than $750 and/or imprisonment for up to 6 months for willfully or maliciously killing a wild horse. | Statute |
| SC - Dog - Consolidated Dog Laws | Code 1976 § 16-13-60; Code 1976 § 23-1-100; Code 1976 § 23-23-140; Code 1976 § 1-1-655; Code 1976 § 47-3-10 - 990; Code 1976 § 47-5-10 - 210; Code 1976 § 47-7-10 - 170; Code 1976 § 50-11-65, § 50-11-770, § 50-11-780, and § 51-3-145; Code 1976 § 50-19-960 | ST SC § 16-13-60; ST SC § 23-1-100; SC ST § 1-1-655; SC ST § 47-3-10 - 990; SC ST § 47-5-10 - 210; SC ST § 47-7-10 - 170; SC ST § 50-11-65, § 50-11-770, § 50-11-780; § 51-3-145; § 50-19-960 | These statutes comprise South Carolina's state dog laws. Among the provisions include laws concerning damage done by dogs (especially to livestock), rabies control provisions, and registration requirements. | Statute |
| Wilkison v. City of Arapahoe | 926 N.W.2d 441 (Neb.,2019) | 302 Neb. 968 (2019) | Brooke Wilkison (Brooke) got an American Staffordshire Terrier (pit bull) in 2015. In 2016, the city of Arapahoe passed an ordinance regarding dangerous dogs which contained a restriction on owning a Rottweiler or an American Staffordshire Terrier within city limits. The ordinance allowed for dogs licensed prior to January 1, 2017 to be grandfathered in as acceptable. Brooke did not have his dog licensed prior to the that date. Law enforcement told Brooke he could not keep the dog. Brooke filed suit seeking a declaratory judgment and an injunction to prevent Arapahoe from implementing and enforcing the ordinance. The trial court found for Brooke and Arapahoe appealed. Arapahoe's first assignment of error is that the court erred by applying the Fair Housing Act (FHA) to the ordinance. The Court found that Arapahoe was not exempt from the strictures of the FHA. Arapahoe's second assignment of error was that the Court erred by enjoining enforcement of the ordinance against Brooke because Brooke's accommodation is not reasonable and necessary. The Court found that Brooke failed to meet his burden of proof that his requested accommodation is necessary for him to receive the same enjoyment from his home as a non-disabled person would receive. Brooke already owned another dog and the ordinance only covered certain dog breeds. Brooke's other claims for relief were remanded to the district court. In conclusion, the district court erred in entering a declaratory judgment and enjoining Arapahoe from enforcing the ordinance as applied to Brooke. | Case |
| Gregg and Linda Schumacher, and Gregg Schumacher Furs, LLC dba as Schumacher Furs and Outerwear, Plaintiffs v. City of Portland, | In this Opinion, the judge granted the defendants a total of $96,870.85 in attorneys fees. The action stemmed from a lawsuit filed by the Schumachers for $ 6.6 million dollars against the City of Portland and the named defendants seeking damages for alleged illegal protest activities in front of their fur store. The defendants all prevailed on their Motion to Strike. The court observed that awarding of attorney fees is mandatory under Oregon law when a party prevails in an anti-SLAPP (Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation) lawsuit. Thus, the issue at hand was the amount of the attorney fees. The court went through the factors under Oregon law in analyzing the reasonableness of the requested attorney fees. When examining each factor, the court determined that the evidence either was in favor of defendants or was neutral. Notably, the court found that the plaintiffs' claims against defendants were not objectively reasonable because the plaintiffs did not produce any evidence that the prevailing defendants did anything illegal. | Pleading | ||
| State of Florida v. Peters | 534 So.2d 760 (Fla.App. 3 Dist. 1988). | This is an appeal from an order of the county court invalidating a City of North Miami ordinance regulating the ownership of pit bull dogs. The ordinance in question, City of North Miami Ordinance No. 422.5, regulates the ownership of pit bulls by requiring their owners to carry insurance or furnish other evidence of financial responsibility, register their pit bulls with the City, and confine the dogs indoors or in a locked pen. The court dismissed defendants claims that the ordinance violates equal protection and due process, and that the ordinance's definition of a pit bull is on its face unconstitutionally vague. | Case | |
| Leger v. Louisiana Dept. of Wildlife and Fisheries | 306 So.2d 391 (La.App. 1975) |
Alex Leger instituted this action against the Louisiana Wildlife and Fisheries Commission and Burton Angelle, in his capacity as Commissioner of the Louisiana Department of Wildlife and Fisheries, to recover damages for the loss of his 1973 sweet potato crop. Leger's primary contention was that, since the State of Louisiana is the owner of all wild quadrupeds according to statute, it is legally responsible for damages done to his potato crop. The court held that the statutory language compels the conclusion that the state's ownership is in a sovereign, and not a proprietary, capacity. Thus, the nature of the ownership is as a trustee and the management duties are carried out under police power authority. The court found nothing in the cited statutes or in the law which indicates that the state has a duty to harbor wild birds or wild quadrupeds, to control their movements or to prevent them from damaging privately owned property. |
Case |