Results
| Title | Citation | Alternate Citation | Agency Citation | Summary | Type |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ME - Disaster - Chapter 307. State of Maine Animal Response Team. | 7 M.R.S.A. § 1901 - 1902 | ME ST T. 7 § 1901 - 1902 | The Commissioner of Agriculture, Food and Rural Resources is directed to develop a State of Maine Animal Response Team to support a network that protects human and animal health through preparation, response and recovery for animal emergencies. The Team is to facilitate a response to a natural or man-made disaster and minimize the economic and environmental impacts of animal emergencies. The Treasurer of State is mandated to establish the State of Maine Animal Response Team Fund to pay costs incurred by the Team. | Statute | |
| RI - Restaurant - § 21-27-12. Outdoor dining--Dogs permitted | Gen.Laws 1956, § 21-27-12 | RI ST § 21-27-12 | Rhode Island has the newest law. In July of 2016, a law enabling restaurant owners to allow a patron's dog to accompany the patron in the outdoor dining area during the hours designated by the owner of the restaurant became effective. The law is very similar to Maryland's by giving the restaurateur the ability to regulate the size and type of dog entering the area. The owner may also deny entry to the restaurant and can eject any patron accompanied by a dog at his or her own discretion. Signage explaining the policy and rules must be visibly posted. | Statute | |
| Farnham v. Meder | 45 A.D.3d 1315 (N.Y.A.D. 4 Dept., 2007) | 2007 N.Y. Slip Op. 08529, 2007 WL 3318273 (N.Y.A.D. 4 Dept.), 845 N.Y.S.2d 619 |
In this New York case, the plaintiff commenced this negligence action seeking damages for injuries sustained when defendants' bull knocked him to the ground while plaintiff was chasing the bull from his own property. Defendants moved for summary judgment dismissing the complaint on the ground that plaintiff's activities in chasing the bull constituted primary assumption of the risk. This court concluded that Supreme Court properly denied defendants' motion. The record established that plaintiff was fully familiar with defendants' bull and had in fact chased the bull from plaintiffs' property on prior occasions. At no time had the bull ever acted aggressively toward plaintiff, and thus plaintiff had no reason to assume that the bull would do so on this particular occasion. |
Case | |
| ZENIER v. SPOKANE INTERNATIONAL RAILROAD COMPANY | 300 P.2d 494 (Idaho, 1956) | 78 Idaho 196 (Idaho, 1956) |
In Zenier v. Spokane Intern. R. Co ., 78 Idaho 196 (Idaho 1956), a rancher’s mare and colt was killed, and the rancher sought statutory damages and attorney fees. A jury found for the rancher and imposed damages mainly on his testimony as to value. The railroad sought review, stating that the rancher's own negligence in allowing the horses to run barred recovery and there was no objective evidence as to value. The court upheld the award, finding that the animal’s value to the rancher was permitted as a basis for determining damages where personal property has been injured by the willful or negligent act of another. |
Case | |
| US - Cruelty - § 11.446 Cruelty to animals. | 25 C.F.R. § 11.446 | This regulation concerns acts of animal cruelty on Indian reservations or under the jurisdiction of tribal courts. According to § 11.446, a person commits a misdemeanor if he or she purposely or recklessly subjects any animal in his or her custody to cruel neglect; subjects any animal to cruel mistreatment; kills or injures any animal belonging to another without legal privilege or consent of the owner; or causes one animal to fight with another. | Administrative | ||
| IL - Hunting - 5/48-3. Hunter or fisherman interference | 720 I.L.C.S. 5/48-3 | 720 I.L.C.S. 5/48-3 | A person commits hunter or fisherman interference when he or she intentionally or knowingly obstructs or interferes with the lawful taking of wildlife or aquatic life by another person with the specific intent to prevent that lawful taking. This includes things such as blocking or impeding the person hunting, using objects or barriers, using artificial or natural stimuli to hinder the lawful taking, or even using a drone in a way that interferes with another person's lawful taking of wildlife or aquatic life. A first violation is a Class B misdemeanor with enhacements for subsequent offenses. | Statute | |
| Keep Michigan Wolves Protected v. State, Dep't of Nat. Res. | Not Reported in N.W.2d2016 WL 6905923 (2016) | Plaintiff, Keep Michigan Wolves Protected (KMWP), appealed an order of the Court of Claims concluding that PA 281 does not violate Michigan's Constitution or statutes, and the granting of summary disposition in favor of defendants, the State of Michigan, the Department of Natural Resources, and the Natural Resources Commission. The issue began in 2011 when the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service removed gray wolves from the federal list of endangered species, returning management of wolf populations to Michigan. In 2012, the governor of Michigan signed PA 520 into law, which added the wolf to the definition of "game" animals. Plaintiff KMWP organized a statewide referendum petition drive to reject PA 520 at the November 4, 2014 general election, which would have rendered PA 520 ineffective unless approved by a majority of voters. In 2013, Michigan's Governor signed into law PA 21 and PA 22, which granted the Natural Resources Commission (NRC) authority to manage wolves. In addition, the laws also gave qualified members of the military free game and fish licenses. Another petition drive was initiated by plaintiff and required signatures were collected to place the issue on the November 2014 ballot. However, in December 2013, before this, Citizens for Professional Wildlife Management (CPWM) circulated a petition to initiate the Scientific Fish and Wildlife Management Act also known as PA 281. This new law would reenact PA 520 and 21, giving the NRC authority for designating game animals, offering free military hunting and fishing licenses, and appropriating $1 million to manage invasive species. In May of 2014, the CPWM certified this initiative petition and submitted directly it to the Legislature to enact or reject the law. The Legislature adopted the law, which became known as PA 281. Notably, at the November 2014 election, a majority of voters rejected PA 520 and PA 21. Regardless, PA 281, which included the voter-rejected designation of the wolf as a game species, was signed into law and the NRC designated wolves as a game species effective March 2015. Following this, plaintiff filed the underlying complaint that challenged the constitutionality of PA 281, specifically that it violated the Title–Object Clause of Michigan's Constitution, Const 1963, art 4, § 24, which states that (1) a law must not embrace more than one object, and (2) the object of the law must be expressed in its title. The Court of Claims granted defendants' summary disposition motion, holding the the general purpose of PA 281 is to “manage fish, wildlife, and their habitats” and that all of the law's provisions relate to this purpose, and concluded that the law did not violate the single-object requirement of the Title–Object Clause. The Court of Appeals found that some provisions of PA 281 did not violate the Title-Object Clause including (1) free licenses to military and (2) appropriating $1 million to respond to the threat of invasive fish species. However, the court did find that the free licenses to members of the military has no necessary connection to the scientific management of fish, wildlife, and their habitats violating the single-object rule of the Title-Object Clause. While the court noted that there is a severability option with provisions of laws that violate the Title-Object Clause, the court cannot conclude the Legislature would have passed PA 281 without the provision allowing free hunting, trapping, and fishing licenses for active members of the military. Thus, this provision cannot be severed from PA 281, and, consequently, the court found PA 281 is unconstitutional. The court noted that its decision rests solely under an analysis of the Michigan Constitution and related cases. However, the court noted that plaintiff's assertion that the initiating petition by defendant put "curb appeal" of free military licenses and invasive species control to "surreptitiously" reenact a provision that would ensure wolves would be on the game species list was an "accurate" assessment. The court even said that PA 281 "conjures up images of a Trojan Horse, within which the ability to hunt wolves was cleverly hidden." The order granting summary judgment for defendants was reversed and the matter was remanded. | Case | ||
| Engquist v. Loyas | 803 N.W.2d 400 (Minn.,2011) | 2011 WL 4374605 (Minn.,2011) |
After a 9-year old child was bitten by defendant's dog while at a sleepover at defendant's house, the child's mother sued the dog’s owners on child's behalf. The jury found that the plaintiff provoked the dog and the court entered a judgment in favor of defendants. The appellate court reversed on the ground that the jury instruction given by the district court misstated the meaning of provocation under the statute, and remanded for a new trial. In the instant action, the Supreme Court affirms this decision. Specifically, the jury here could have found provocation without any consideration of the victim's knowledge of the danger, and this misstatement prejudiced the defendant. |
Case | |
| Sak v. City of Aurelia, Iowa | 832 F.Supp.2d 1026 (N.D.Iowa,2011) | 44 NDLR P 125 |
After suffering a disabling stroke, a retired police officer’s pit bull mix was trained to become a service dog. However, the town where the retired police officer resided had a Breed Specific ordinance that prohibited pit bulls. The retired police officer and his wife brought this suit against the city alleging that the ordinance violated his rights under Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), and also sought a preliminary injunction to enjoin the city from enforcing the ordinance. The officer’s preliminary injunction was granted after the court found: 1) the officer was likely to succeed on merits of ADA claim; 2) the officer would suffer irreparable harm absent injunction; 3) the balance of equities was in favor of injunctive relief; 4) and the national public interest in enforcement of ADA trumped more local public interest in public health and safety reflected in ordinance. |
Case | |
| A night monkey used in malaria research is inside a soiled corrugated pipe serving as a nest. | Slideshow Images |