|Title||Citation||Alternate Citation||Agency Citation||Summary||Type|
|Stephanski v. Wimpy||Complaint against a vet. for malpractice. Plaintiff's dog died after it was neutered. Plaintiff sought non-economic damages.||Pleading|
|SC - Exotic Pets - Chapter 16. Importation of Wildlife.||Code 1976 § 50-11-1700 - 1950; § 50-16-10 - 70||SD ST § 50-11-1700 - 1950; § 50-16-10 - 70||This South Carolina law states that it is unlawful for a person to import, possess, or transport for the purpose of release or to introduce or bring into this State the following live wildlife: a furbearer which includes but is not limited to, red and gray fox, raccoon, opossum, muskrat, mink, skunk, otter, bobcat, weasel, and beaver; a member of the family Cervidae, a nondomestic member of the families Suidae (pigs), Tayassuidae (peccaries), Bovidae (bison, mountain goat, mountain sheep), coyote, bear, or turkey (genus Meleagris); or a non-native species of fish, crustacean, mollusk, or invertebrate. A permit may be granted only after the investigations and inspections of the wildlife have been made as the department considers necessary and the department approves the possession, transportation, or importation into the State. Sec. 50-11-1765 provides that it is unlawful to sell live wolves or to ship, import, or possess live wolves into this State without a permit.||Statute|
|R. v. Senior|| 1 QB 283||
Held: The word "wilfully", when used in the context of an offence prohibiting cruelty to children, "means that the act is done deliberately and intentionally, not by accident or inadvertence, but so that the mind of the person who does the act goes with it" ( per Lord Russell of Killowen C.J.). Note: the word "wilfully" is occasionally an element of animal welfare offences, such as that of wilfully, without any reasonable cause or excuse, administering a poisonous drug or substance to an animal (Protection of Animals Act 1911, s 1(1)(d)).
|White v. Vermont Mutual Insurance Company||106 A.3d 1159 (N.H., 2014)||167 N.H. 153 (2014)||This is an appeal brought by Susan and Peter White to a declaratory judgment that her son, Charles Matthews, was not covered under Susan's homeowner's insurance policy with the respondent.The incident that led to this case involved Matthews' dog causing injury to Susan while at the home covered by the policy. The policy covered the insurer and residents of their home who are relatives, so Susan attempted to collect from Vermont Mutual for the damage done by the dog. However, her claim was denied because Matthews was deemed to not be a resident of the home. This court affirms.||Case|
|NY - Municipal power - Chapter 69. Of the Consolidated Laws.||McKinney's Agriculture and Markets Law § 124||NY AGRI & MKTS § 124||This New York law provides that the commissioner is hereby authorized to (a) promulgate, after public hearing, such rules and regulations as are necessary to supplement and give full effect to the provisions of sections one hundred thirteen, one hundred fourteen and one hundred seventeen of this article; and (b) exercise all other powers and functions as are necessary to carry out the duties and purposes set forth in sections one hundred thirteen, one hundred fourteen and one hundred seventeen of this article.||Statute|
|People v. Meadows||54 Misc. 3d 697, 46 N.Y.S.3d 843 (N.Y. City Ct. 2016), rev'd, No. 17-AP-002, 2017 WL 4367065 (N.Y. Co. Ct. Aug. 3, 2017)||2016 N.Y. Slip Op. 26405, 2016 WL 7165826||
Defendant Amber Meadows allegedly neglected to provide dogs Athena, Buddy, and Meeko, with air, food, and water, and confined them in a bedroom where feces was found on the floor and furniture. Meadows was prosecuted for three counts of the unclassified misdemeanor of failure to provide proper food and drink to an impounded animal in violation of § 356 of the Agriculture and Markets Law (AML). Meadows moved to dismiss the Information as facially insufficient and stated that the Supporting Deposition indicated that the dogs were “in good condition.” The People of the State of New York argued that the allegations in both the Information and Deposition, taken together, provide a sufficient basis to establish the elements of the crime. The Canandaigua City Court, Ontario County, held that: (1) “impounded” as stated in § 356 of the Agriculture and Markets Law does not apply to individual persons, and (2) even if the statute applied to individual persons, the allegations in the Information were not facially sufficient. The court reasoned § 356 does not apply to individual persons, but instead applies only to “pounds” operated by not-for-profit organizations, or kennels where animals are confined for hire. The court also stated that even if § 356 were to apply to individuals, under no construction of the facts here could the charge be sustained, as it appeared that the animals were properly cared for in the Defendant's apartment up to the point where she was forcibly detained. The conditions observed by law enforcement authorities on the date alleged in the Information were apparently several days after Meadow's incarceration and after which she was unsuccessful in securing assistance for the dogs while incarcerated. The Information was dismissed with prejudice, and the People's application for leave to file an amended or superseding Information was denied.
|KY - Louisville/Jefferson County - Title IX: General Regulations (Chapter 91: Animals)||Louisville/Jefferson County Metro Government Code of Ordinances § 91.098 MUTILATION OF ANIMALS||
In Louisville-Jefferson County, Kentucky, no person shall crop a dog’s ears or tail, except a veterinarian. Additionally, no person shall mutilate any animal whether dead or alive; however, this provision does not apply to accepted livestock practices concerning humane slaughter at licensed stockyards, slaughterhouses and meat packing establishments or on the premises of agricultural uses. Penalties are also included for violating these provisions.
|Rosche v. Wayne Feed Div. Continental Grain Co.||447 N.W.2d 94 (1989)||152 Wis.2d 78 (1989)||
Pig breeder sought damages from feed manufacturer after pigs got sick, died, or became sterile after eating feed. The Court of Appeals held that jury should have been instructed that basic measure of damages for dead and injured livestock was based on market value of affected animals and did not include separate award for unborn litters. Failure to give proper instruction was prejudicial error that required a new trial on the issue of damages.
|ND - Eagle - Chapter 20.1-04. Birds, Regulations.||NDCC 20.1-04-05 (repealed 2017)||ND ST 20.1-04-05||(Repealed 2017) North Dakota has a statute that specifically prohibits any taking or possession of bald and golden eagles or their parts. Included in the prohibited acts are take, kill, hunt, possess, pursue, or even disturb. Buying and selling are not specifically listed, but are presumed to be included in possess.||Statute|
|NV - Wildlife - Chapter 504. Wildlife Management and Propagation.||NAC 504.471||This administrative provision restricts the shipment, transportation and exportation of wildlife subject to limited exceptions.||Administrative|