Results
| Title | Citation | Alternate Citation | Agency Citation | Summary | Type |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| MD - Fur - Title 10. Wildlife. | MD Code, Natural Resources, § 10-408.1 | MD NAT RES § 10-408.1 | This Maryland law restricts some forms of trapping. Specifically, it provides that a person, while trapping or attempting to trap animals, may not place, set, maintain, or operate any snares, body-gripping, or leghold traps within 150 yards of a permanent human residence. However, the restriction does not apply to body-gripping traps with a jaw spread of less than 6 inches that are placed, maintained, and operated completely submerged in water or snare-type traps used to catch rats or mice. | Statute | |
| People v. Garcia | 29 A.D.3d 255 (N.Y.A.D. 1 Dept., 2006) | 2006 WL 771373 (N.Y.A.D. 1 Dept.), 812 N.Y.S.2d 66 |
In this New York case, the court, as a matter of first impression, considered the scope of the aggravated cruelty law (§ 353-a(1)) in its application to a pet goldfish. Defendant argued that a goldfish should not be included within the definition of companion animal under the statute because there is "no reciprocity in affection" similar to other companion animals like cats or dogs. In finding that the statute did not limit the definition as such, the court held that defendant's intentional stomping to death of a child's pet goldfish fell within the ambit of the statute. Accordingly, the judgment of the Supreme Court, New York County that convicted defendant of attempted assault in the second degree, criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree, criminal mischief in the third degree, assault in the third degree (three counts), endangering the welfare of a child (three counts), and aggravated cruelty to animals in violation of Agriculture and Markets Law § 353-a(1) was affirmed. |
Case | |
| US - Eagle - Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Proposed Rule To Remove | 1999 WL 449508 (F.R.) |
We, the Fish and Wildlife Service (the Service), propose to remove the bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus), from the List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife in the lower 48 States of the United States. We propose this action because the available data indicate that this species has recovered. The recovery is due in part to habitat protection and management actions initiated under the Endangered Species Act. It is also due to reduction in levels of persistent organochlorine pesticides such as DDT occurring in the environment. Section 4(g) of the Act requires the Service to monitor recovered species for at least 5 years following delisting. This rule describes our proposed post-delisting monitoring plan for bald eagles. Removal of the bald eagle as a threatened species under the Act will not affect the protection provided under the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act, the Migratory Bird Treaty Act, and many other state laws. |
Administrative | ||
| Moreland v. Adams | 152 P.3d 558 (Idaho, 2007) | 2007 WL 189336 (Idaho, 2007), 143 Idaho 687 (2007) |
A motorcyclist died when he ran into a calf on the road. His family sued for wrongful death. The court held that the owner of the calf was not liable because of open range immunity. |
Case | |
| State v. Acker | 160 Conn. App. 734 (2015) | 2015 WL 6142904 (Conn. App. Ct., 2015) | Defendant, the director of the Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals of Connecticut, Inc., was charged with 63 counts of animal cruelty for failing to give animals “proper care by exposing [them] to conditions that placed [them] at risk of hypothermia, dehydration, or to conditions injurious to [their] well-being....” Defendant was the director of a nonprofit animal rescue organization and housed rescued dogs in an uninsulated outdoor barn heated solely by space heaters. After a trial, Defendant was convicted of 15 counts and acquitted of the remaining 48 counts of animal cruelty. On appeal, the defendant claimed that (1) there was insufficient evidence to support the conviction and (2)C.G.S.A. § 53-247(a) was unconstitutionally vague as applied to the facts of this case. The appellate court rejected defendant’s claims and affirmed the trial court’s decision. | Case | |
| MT - Equine Activity Liability - Chapter 1. Availability of Remedies--Liability. | MCA 27-1-725 to 27-1-728 | MT ST 27-1-725 to 27-1-728 | The Montana equine activity liability act provides that it is the policy of the state of Montana that a person is not liable for damages sustained by another solely as a result of risks inherent in equine activities if those risks are or should be reasonably obvious, expected, or necessary to persons engaged in equine activities. Liability is not limited by this statute where the equine professional knowingly provided faulty tack or equipment, failed to make reasonable and prudent efforts to determine the ability of the participant to engage safely in the equine activity, owns or otherwise is in lawful possession of the land or facilities upon which the participant sustained injuries because of a known, dangerous latent condition, or if he or she commits an act or omission that constitutes willful or wanton disregard for the safety of the participant or intentionally injures the participant. | Statute | |
| US - Pets and housing - Subpart C. Pet Ownership for the Elderly or Persons with Disabilities. | 24 C.F.R. § 5.350 to .380 | This set of HUD regulations set forth the mandatory pet rules for housing programs. The procedure for the development of pet rules is outlined as well as pet rule violation procedures. One rule states that an applicant for tenancy in a project for the elderly or persons with disabilities may reject a unit offered by a project owner if the unit is in close proximity to a dwelling unit in which an existing tenant of the project owns or keeps a common household pet. The rules also contemplate protection of the pet by allowing project owners to contact state or local authorities to remove the pet if the health or safety of the pet is threatened by the death or incapacity of the pet owner. | Administrative | ||
| IL - Horse Meat Act - Chapter 225. Professions and Occupations. | 225 ILCS 635/1 - 18 | IL ST CH 225 § 635/1 - 18 | This Act prohibits the slaughter of horses for human consumption as well as importing, exporting, selling, giving, or even possessing horse meat if a person knows or should know that it will be used for human consumption. Violation of this section of the Act is a Class C misdemeanor. The Act does contain several exceptions. Notably, it does not apply to any commonly accepted noncommercial, recreational, or sporting activities. | Statute | |
| Pratt v. Pratt | 1988 WL 120251 (Minn. Ct. App. Nov. 15, 1998) (unpublished opinion). |
A childless, divorcing couple sought divorce; trial court awarded couple's registered dogs to wife based on the best interest standard used for determination of custody of children. Appellate court held the best interest statute inapplicable to dogs, but stated that the trial court can award dogs based on evidence of mistreatment of the dogs by one of the parties. Because the trial court's determination had a reasonable basis in fact, the appellate court affirmed its decision. |
Case | ||
| Northern Arapahoe Tribe v. Hodel | 808 F.2d 741 (10th Cir. 1987) | 6 Fed.R.Serv.3d 1248 (1987) |
After the Secretary of the Interior promulgated regulations establishing a game code regulating hunting on the reservation, the Arapahoe Tribe of Wyoming sued the Secretary and other federal officials, seeking declaratory and injunctive relief to prevent enforcement of the regulations. At issue, was a concern over the declining big game populations on the reservation and surrounding areas due to an unusually harsh winter and over-hunting. The Court of Appeals held that the government had the right to enact the game code because the rights of two tribes overlapped with regard to a limited resource, and the "[g]overnment's right extends to preventing overuse by the Arapahoe of their shared right when that overuse endangers the resource and threatens to divest the Shoshone of their right." Where there exists a risk of extinction, the government may enact interim game code measures to prevent the threat when the tribes fail to enact their own game codes. |
Case |