|Title||Citation||Alternate Citation||Agency Citation||Summary||Type|
|MO - Hunting - Chapter 537. Torts and Actions for Damages.||V. A. M. S. 578.151 - 153; V. A. M. S. 537.524||MO ST 578.151 - 153; MO ST 537.524||This Missouri law reflects the state's hunter harassment provision. Under the law, any person who intentionally interferes with the lawful taking of wildlife by another is guilty of the crime of interference with lawful hunting, fishing or trapping in the first degree. Violation is a class A misdemeanor. Additionally, any person who enters or remains in a hunting, fishing or trapping area where lawful hunting, fishing or trapping may occur with the intent to interfere with the lawful taking of wildlife is guilty of the crime of interference with lawful hunting, fishing or trapping in the second degree. Violation of this section is a class B misdemeanor. A court may enjoin conduct which would be in violation of the hunting interference laws and damages, including punitive damages, may be awarded to person adversely affected.||Statute|
|State v. Shook||2003 WL 347575||
This is the Montana Supreme Court's denial of appellant Shook's petition for rehearing in State v. Shook, 313 Mont. 347 (2002).
|ID - Predators - Chapter 11. Protection of Animals and Birds||I.C. § 36-1101 to 1120||ID ST § 36-1101 to 1120||This Idaho chapter deals with restrictions on the taking of wildlife, protection of wildlife, and control of predators. Migratory birds are protected under the chapter. The chapter also establishes the right of any person to control, trap, or remove any wild animal damaging private property, within limitations set forth. In particular, the chapter states that wolves may be disposed of by livestock or domestic animal owners, their employees, agents and animal damage control personnel when the same are molesting or attacking livestock or domestic animals and it shall not be necessary to obtain any permit from the department. The section also sets up procedures for damage caused by game animals such as deer and elk as well as predators like black bears, grizzly bears, and mountain lions.||Statute|
|Ramirez v. M.L. Management Co., Inc.||920 So.2d 36 (D. Fla. 2004)||2005 WL 3180013 (D. Fla.)||
In this Florida dog bite case, the appellant asked the court to limit the application of a case that held that a landlord has no duty to third parties for injuries caused by a tenant's dog where those injuries occur off the leased premises. The child-tenant injured in this case was bitten by the dog of another tenant in a park adjacent to the apartment complex where she lived. The appellate court reversed the grant of summary judgment for the landlord because the boundary of the premises is not dispositive of the landlord's liability.
|Janush v. Charities Housing Development Corp.||169 F.Supp.2d 1133 (N.D. Ca., 2000)||
Tenant brought action under the Federal Fair Housing Act alleging that her landlord failed to reasonably accommodate her mental disability by refusing to allow her to keep companion animals in her rental unit. Tenant put forth evidence establishing that the animals lessened the effects of her mental disability by providing companionship. The housing authority argued that only service dogs are a reasonable accommodation. The court rejected the housing authority's argument, holding that animals other than service animal can be a reasonable accommodation for a disability. Also, the court noted that whether an accommodation is reasonable is a fact-specific inquiry, requiring an analysis of the burdens imposed on the housing authority and the benefits to the disabled person.
|Com. v. Trefry||51 N.E.3d 502 (Mass. App. Ct., 2016), review denied, 475 Mass. 1104, 60 N.E.3d 1173 (2016)||89 Mass. App. Ct. 568 (Mass. App. 2016), 2016 WL 3262665||The Defendant Trefry, left her two sheepdogs, Zach and Kenji, alone on the property of her condemned home. An animal control officer noticed that Kenji was limping badly and took him to a veterinarian. Both dogs were removed from the property three days later. The Defendant was convicted of two counts of violating statute G.L. c. 140, § 174E(f ), which protects dogs from cruel conditions and inhumane chaining or tethering. The Defendant appealed. The Appeals Court of Massachusetts, Barnstable held that: (1) neither outside confinement nor confinement in general is an element of subjecting dogs to cruel conditions as prohibited by statute; and (2) the evidence was sufficient to support finding that the defendant subjected her dogs to cruel conditions. The Appeals Court reasoned that the defendant subjected her dogs to cruel conditions in violation of the statute because by the time they were removed, the dogs were “incredibly tick-infested” and “matted,” and Kenji had contracted Lyme disease and sustained a soft shoulder injury to his leg. An animal control officer also testified that the defendant's home was cluttered on the inside and overgrown on the outside. The yard also contained items that posed a danger to the animals. There was also sufficient evidence to infer that, while the dogs could move in and out of the condemned house, the dogs were confined to the house and fenced-in yard. The area to which the dogs were confined presented with every factor listed in § 174E(f)(1) as constituting “filthy and dirty” conditions. Also, "Zach's and Kenji's emotional health was further compromised by being left alone virtually all day every day" according to the court. Therefore the Defendant’s conviction was affirmed.||Case|
|US - Meat Inspection - Inspection and Handling of Livestock for Exportation||9 C.F.R. 91||Upon authority granted by the Federal Meat Inspection, Act the USDA promulgated the “Inspection and Handling of Livestock for Exportation (9 C.F.R. 91)." The general export requirements stipulates that all animals intended for export to a foreign country, except by land to Mexico or Canada, must be accompanied from the State of origin of the export movement to the port of embarkation by an origin health certificate.The origin health certificate must certify that the animals were found upon inspection to be healthy and free from evidence of communicable disease. Read the Animal Welfare Institute's petition to propose amendments to three sections of the Inspection and Handling of Livestock for Exportation regulations.||Administrative|
|ME - Assistance Animal - Assistance Animal/Guide Dog Laws||17 M. R. S. A. § 1311 - 1316; 26 M. R. S. A. § 1420-A - 1420C; 7 M. R. S. A. § 3961-A; 5 M. R. S. A. § 4551 - 4555, 4582-A, 4592; 14 M. R. S. A. § 6030-G; 14 M. R. S. A. § 164-B||ME ST T. 17 § 1311 - 1316; ME ST T. 26 §§ 1420-A - 1420-C; ME ST T. 7 § 3961-A; ME ST T. 5 § 4551 - 4555, 4582-A, 4592; ME ST T. 14 § 6030-G; ME ST T. 14 § 164-B||The following statutes comprise the state's relevant assistance animal and guide dog laws.||Statute|
|Gonzales v. Kissner||24 So.3d 214 ((La.App. 1 Cir.,2009)||2009 WL 3029621 (La.App. 1 Cir.), 2008-2154 (La.App. 1 Cir. 9/11/09)||
This Louisiana case concerns an action for personal injuries sustained by an animal control officer who was mauled about the head and neck by defendants' dog while investigating a complaint of an attack by the dog from the previous day. The dog's owners argued on appeal that the trial court failed to apply the Professional Rescuer's Doctrine, sometimes referred to as the “fireman's rule." Because under the facts here, where the dog had previously escaped after being confined in the house and the defendants failed to properly lock the house and/or restrain the dog, the court did not find that Ms. Gonzales' recovery for injuries was barred by the Professional Rescuer's Doctrine. The court held that based upon the record before this court, there was no error on the part of the trial court that warranted reversal of the plaintiff's motion for a partial summary judgment as to the liability of the dog's owners.
|US - Agriculture - Animal Damage Control Act||7 USCA § 8351 - 8354 (formerly cited as 7 USC 426 - 426d)||Animal Damage Control Act of March 2, 1931, (46 Stat. 1468) provided broad authority for investigation, demonstrations and control of mammalian predators, rodents and birds. Public Law 99-19, approved December 19, 1985, (99 Stat 1185) transferred administration of the Act from the Secretary of the Interior to the Secretary of Agriculture. Pub. L. 102-190(Div. A, title III, Sec. 348, Dec. 5, 1991, 105 Stat. 1348) and P.L. 102-237 (Title X, Sec. 1013(d), 105 Stat. 1901, Dec. 13, 1991) added provisions directing the Secretaries of Defense and Agriculture, respectively, to take actions to prevent the introduction of brown tree snakes into other areas of the U.S. from Guam.||Statute|