|Title||Citation||Alternate Citation||Agency Citation||Summary||Type|
|PA - Dangerous - § 459-507-A. Construction of article (dangerous dogs)||3 P.S. § 459-507-A||PA ST 3 P.S. § 459-507-A||This Pennsylvania statute provides the construction of the dangerous dog chapter in the state. It outlines the exceptions under the dangerous dog law as well as the enforcement procedure for one who is attacked by such dog. It also specifically states that any provisions of local ordinances relating to dangerous dogs are hereby abrogated. Further, a local ordinance otherwise dealing with dogs may not prohibit or otherwise limit a specific breed of dog.||Statute|
|MS - Hunting - Chapter 7. Hunting and Fishing. In General.||Miss. Code Ann. § 49-7-147||MS ST § 49-7-147||This law reflects Mississippi's hunter harassment provision. Under the law, no person shall intentionally interfere with or attempt to prevent the lawful taking of wildlife by another, attempt to disturb wildlife, or attempt to affect wildlife behavior to prevent lawful taking. Further, a person may not harass another person who is engaged in the lawful taking of wildlife or in the preparation for such taking. Engaging in such conduct is a Class II violation.||Statute|
|Westberry v. Blackwell||577 P.2d 75 (Or. 1978)||282 Or. 129 (Or. 1978)||
In this Oregon case, plaintiff filed this action to recover for personal injuries sustained when she was bitten by defendants' dog. The complaint alleged a cause of action for strict liability and another for negligence. The trial court granted a judgment of involuntary nonsuit on both causes of action. On appeal, this court found the previous biting, which had occurred only one hour before, could reasonably lead a jury to believe that the dog had dangerous propensities, and that the defendants had knowledge of them. Thus, the court found that the involuntary nonsuit on the strict liability cause was improperly granted. Further, the question of whether the owner, who knew the dog had bitten the guest while on her way into the owner's house, was negligent in failing to control or confine the dog, was for the jury. Reversed and remanded.
|TN - Wildlife, possession - Chapter 1660-01-18. Rules and Regulations of Live Wildlife||TN ADC 1660-01-18-.01 to .06||Tenn. Comp. R. & Regs. 1660-01-18-.01 to .06||These Tennessee regulations outline the requirements for importation and possession of captive wildlife. The species of wildlife for each class of wildlife are described. Facilities for Class I wildlife are provided, which include specific requirements for Class I Felidae or Ursidae. The Class I qualification test requirements are also stated.||Administrative|
|In re Clinton Cty.||56 Misc. 3d 1155, 57 N.Y.S.3d 367 (N.Y. Sur. 2017)||2017 WL 2914475 (N.Y. Sur. July 6, 2017), 2017 N.Y. Slip Op. 27228||Synopsis from the court: County filed notice of claim, directed toward estate of cattle farmer who had passed away after he was charged with animal cruelty, seeking reimbursement for costs incurred in connection with care of seized cattle. The Surrogate's Court, Clinton County, Timothy J. Lawliss, J., held that: (1 ) county failed to establish that it was entitled to any relief based upon a theory of quantum meruit, and (2) even assuming that service providers, and thus county upon payment of service providers' bills, enriched farmer, county was not entitled to recover based upon a theory of unjust enrichment because criminal charges against farmer were dismissed upon his death. Notice of claim denied and dismissed.||Case|
|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|
|MI - Humane Slaughter - Chapter 287. Animal Industry. Humane Slaughter of Livestock.||M.C.L.A. 287.551 - 556||MI ST 287.551 - 556||A typical state law that imposes the requirements of humane slaughter upon the commercial operations of the state. The law describes humane methods of slaughter, which include ritual slaughter methods. It also makes the statement that no slaughterer, packer or stockyard operator shall shackle, hoist or otherwise bring livestock into position for slaughter by any method which shall cause injury or pain. However, the director, by administrative order, may exempt from compliance with this act, for a period not to exceed 1 year after the effective date of this act, any slaughterer, packer or stockyard operator if he finds that an earlier compliance would cause such person an undue hardship. Any person who violates any provision of this act shall be guilty of a misdemeanor.||Statute|
|Mercado v. Ovalle||973 N.Y.S.2d 171 (N.Y.A.D. 1 Dept., 2013)||2013 N.Y. Slip Op. 06810, 2013 WL 5712557, 110 A.D.3d 539||
In this New York case, plaintiff appealed the lower court's order granting defendants' motion for summary judgment in a dog bite case. Defendants, a grocery store and its owner, asserted that they did not own the two pit bulls that attacked plaintiff. The only evidence plaintiff presented showing defendants' ownership and control over the dogs were hearsay statements from the mechanic who operated the lot that the dogs guarded. The court found this evidence that defendants occasionally walked and fed the dogs insufficient to show that they "harbored" the dogs. Affirmed.
|US - Slaughter - Prohibition of the Use of Specified Risk Materials for Human Food||2007 WL 2010444 (F.R.)||72 FR 38700-01 (2007)||
The Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) is affirming, with changes, the interim final rule "Prohibition of the Use of Specified Risk Materials for Human Food and Requirements for the Disposition of Non-Ambulatory Cattle," which was published in the Federal Register on January 12, 2004. The Agency is also affirming the interim final rule "Prohibition of the Use of Certain Stunning Devices Used to Immobilize Cattle During Slaughter," also published on January 12, 2004. FSIS issued these interim final rules in response to the confirmation on December 23, 2003, of bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE) in an imported dairy cow in Washington State. FSIS is taking this action to make permanent interim measures implemented by the Agency to minimize human exposure to cattle materials that could potentially contain the BSE agent.
|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|