Results
Displaying 6601 - 6610 of 6638
Title |
Citation | Alternate Citation | Agency Citation | Summary | Type |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 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 | |
| WY - Ordinances - § 11-31-301. Public nuisance; notice; penalties; rules and regulations; | W. S. 1977 § 11-31-301 | WY ST § 11-31-301 | This Wyoming statute provides that a board of county commissioners may declare the running at large of any specified animals in unincorporated areas within the county limits a public nuisance. Dogs or other animals, whose ownership cannot be determined, may be destroyed. A dog injuring or killing livestock may be killed by the owner of the livestock or his agent or any peace officer. However, any dog attacking any person in a vicious manner may be impounded by the county sheriff or animal control officer and held in quarantine for at least fifteen (15) days and not more than twenty (20) days after the attack to determine whether the dog has any disease which may be communicated to humans. A board of county commissioners may enact regulations relative to dogs running at large, vicious dogs, dogs running wild game or livestock or acts by other animals which shall carry out the purposes of this section. The county may also establish a county license fee and an animal control program/facility. | Statute | |
| WY - Predatory Animals - Chapter 6. Predatory Animals. | W. S. 1977 § 11-6-101 - 313 | WY ST § 11-6-101 - 313 | This first article of the chapter allows owners of livestock to fill out an application with the board of county commissioners to receive permission to eradicate predatory animals. The second article of the chapter outlines the composition and function of the state predator management advisory board. Article 3 outlines the Wyoming animal damage management program. In that section, "predatory animal is defined as any coyote, jackrabbit, porcupine, raccoon, red fox, skunk or stray cat; and gray wolves except where they are designated as trophy game animals. | Statute | |
| WY - Rehabilitation - Chapter 45. Wildlife Rehabilitation | WY ADC GAME POSS Ch. 45 s 1 - 24 | WY Rules and Regulations GAME POSS Ch. 45 s 1 - 24 | The purpose of this regulation is to provide for the care of sick, injured, debilitated or orphaned wildlife, excluding big game animals and trophy game animals, by permitted wildlife rehabilitators and to provide criteria for the issuance of permits to such wildlife rehabilitators. In accordance with this regulation, wildlife rehabilitators issued permits pursuant to this regulation may acquire sick, injured, debilitated, or orphaned wildlife and provide necessary treatment in order that the wildlife may be returned to live in the wild independent of human aid and sustenance. As soon as it can be determined that sick or injured wildlife is not likely to recover within one-hundred eighty (180) days, the wildlife shall be euthanized; unless Department approval is given for extended care. | Administrative | |
| WY - Scientific permits - Chapter 33. Regulation Governing Issuance of Scientific Research | WY ADC GAME POSS Ch. 33 s 1 - 9 | WY Rules and Regulations GAME POSS Ch. 33 s 1- 9 | The purpose of this regulation is to govern and regulate the issuance of permits to take, capture, handle, and transport Wyoming wildlife for scientific research, educational or special purposes. Such permits may be issued to persons, educational institutions, or governmental entities when the Wyoming Game and Fish Department determines the scientific research, educational, or special purposes are beneficial to wildlife, the department or the public. | Administrative | |
| WY - Trust - § 4-10-409. Trust for care of animal | W. S. 1977 § 4-10-409 | WY ST § 4-10-409 | This statute represents Wyoming's pet trust law. The law provides that a trust may be created to provide for the care of an animal alive during the settlor's lifetime. The trust terminates upon the death of the last animal named in the trust. | Statute | |
| WY - Veterinary - Chapter 30. Veterinarians | W. S. 1977 §§ 33-30-101 to 225 | WY ST §§ 33-30-101 to 225 | These are the state's veterinary practice laws. Among the provisions include licensing requirements, laws concerning the state veterinary board, veterinary records laws, and the laws governing disciplinary actions for impaired or incompetent practitioners. | Statute | |
| WY - Wildlife, exotic hybrid - Chapter 1. Game and Fish Administration. | W. S. 1977 §§ 23-1-101 to 109 | WY ST §§ 23-1-101 to 109 | This section of Wyoming statutes states that all wildlife in the state is considered the property of the state. It further provides that there is no private ownership of live animals classified in this act as big or trophy game animals. Exotic species means any wild animals, including amphibians, reptiles, mollusks, crustaceans or birds not found in a wild, free or unconfined status in Wyoming. This section also contains the management laws for delisted gray wolves that were repealed in 2012. | Statute | |
| Wyno v. Lowndes County | 824 S.E.2d 297 (Ga., 2019), reconsideration denied (Mar. 13, 2019) | 305 Ga. 523 (2019) | Misty Wyno was attacked and killed by a neighbor’s dog. Her husband, Jason Wyno brought a wrongful death action against the dog’s owners, Lowndes County, and four individual Lowndes County Animal Control employees. Jason alleged that Lowndes County and the County Employees negligently failed to perform ministerial duties, negligently failed to provide police protection, negligently created and failed to abate a nuisance, were negligent in their control of allegedly dangerous dogs, and were negligent per se by violating several provisions of the Lowndes County Animal Control Ordinance. Jason also alleged that the County Employees acted with actual malice and/or an intent to injure by repeatedly refusing to investigate or take any action with regards to the dangerous dogs. Lowndes County asserted sovereign immunity as a defense for both itself and its employees. In addition, Lowndes County and the County Employees asserted that they were immune from liability due to the provisions of the Dangerous Dog Control Law in effect at the time. The trial court dismissed the suit against the employees in their individual capacities finding that the Dangerous Dog Control Law barred an action against any party except the dog’s owners. The Supreme Court of Georgia ultimately held that the record was devoid of any evidence that any of the County Employees acted with malice or the intent to harm Jason or Misty Wyno to defeat official immunity. Jason, therefore, did not satisfy his burden and the Court affirmed the trial court’s decision. | Case | |
| Wyno v. Lowndes County | 331 Ga. App. 541, 771 S.E.2d 207 (2015), cert. denied (June 15, 2015) | 2015 WL 1318263 (Ga. Ct. App. 2015) | Victim was attacked and killed by her neighbor's dog. Victim's husband, acting individually and as administrator of his wife's estate, brought action against dog owners and several government defendants, whom he alleged failed to respond to earlier complaints about the dog. The trial court dismissed the action against the government for failure to state a claim, concluding that sovereign and official immunity or, alternatively, the Responsible Dog Ownership Law (OCGA § 4–8–30), barred action against the government defendants. Husband appealed. The appeals court held the trial court did not err in dismissing the action against the county and its employees in their official capacities. The former version of OCGA § 4–8–30, effective at the time of the attack, provided immunity to local governments and their employees from liability for all injuries inflicted by dangerous or potentially dangerous dogs. The appeals court held that the trial court erred in dismissing the action against the employees in their individual capacities based on official immunity, however. By applying the former OCGA § 4–8–30 (2012) to dismiss the action against the employees in their individual capacities, the trial court implicitly rejected the husband’s constitutional challenge to the statute. Judgment was therefore affirmed in part and reversed in part, and remanded to the trial court to enter a ruling specifically and directly passing on the husband’s constitutional challenge. | Case |