Results

Displaying 6221 - 6230 of 6638
Title Citation Alternate Citation Agency Citation Summary Type
US - Endangered Species - Subpart D. Threatened Wildlife 50 C.F.R. § 17.31 - 17.48 These Endangered Species Act regulations relate to threatened species. Included in the provisions are requirements for obtaining permits to take such species for one of the following purposes: scientific purposes, or the enhancement of propagation or survival, or economic hardship, or zoological exhibition, or educational purposes, or incidental taking, or special purposes consistent with the purposes of the Act. Also included are special rules for certain mammals, reptiles, birds, and fishes among other species. Administrative
Peterson v. Eichhorn 189 P.3d 615 (Mont., 2008) 2008 MT 250, 2008 WL 2738453 (Mont.)

In this Montana case, the plaintiff brought claims for negligence, strict liability for abnormally dangerous domestic animal, and punitive damages against the defendant horse owner. She alleged that defendant's horse bit her while she was on land defendant used for pasturing the horse that adjoined her land. After the lower court granted summary judgment to the defendant, the plaintiff appealed. The Supreme Court held that even though the Montana Supreme Court has not adopted the provision of the Second Restatement of Torts regarding an animal owner's strict liability for injury caused by an abnormally dangerous domestic animal, this was not the test case to do it. The court found that Peterson failed to produce any evidence or legal authority that the horse's biting constituted a “dangerous propensity abnormal to her class” to bring her under the Restatement's strict liability.

Case
CT - Hunting - § 26-80b. Sale or use of computer software or service to remotely hunt C. G. S. A. § 26-80b CT ST § 26-80b This Connecticut law states that no person shall operate, provide, sell, use or offer to operate, provide, sell or use any computer software or service that allows a person, when not physically present, to remotely control a firearm or weapon to hunt a live animal or bird. Violation is a class A misdemeanor. Statute
CA - Dog Fighting - § 597.5. Fighting dogs; felony; punishment; spectators; exceptions West's Ann. Cal. Penal Code § 597.5 CA PENAL § 597.5 This California statute provides that it is a felony to own, possess, keep, or train any dog, with the intent that the dog shall be engaged in an exhibition of fighting with another dog, or to cause dogs to fight for the purpose of amusement or gain. Knowingly being a spectator at such an event constitutes a misdemeanor. Statute
Canada - Alberta - Dangerous Dogs Act R.S.A. 2000, c. D-3, s. 1 This set of laws comprises the Alberta, Canada Dangerous Dog Act. Under the Act, a justice may take a complaint that a dog has bitten or attempted to bite a person, or that a dog is dangerous and not kept under proper control. In either circumstance, if it appears to the justice that the dog ought to be destroyed, the justice shall direct a peace officer to destroy it. Additionally, a person who fails to comply with an order under this section is guilty of an offence and liable to a fine of not more than $5 for each day during which the person fails to comply with the order. Statute
Adrian v. Vonk 807 N.W.2d 119 (S.D. 2012) 2011 S.D. 84 (2011); 2011 WL 6260860 (S.D.)

Ranchers sued State for damage to their property from prairie dogs from public lands. The Supreme Court held that statutes governing State's participation in programs to control prairie dogs did not contain express waivers of sovereign immunity; State's statutorily-mandated actions in controlling prairie dogs were discretionary acts, and ranchers' action was barred by sovereign immunity; and statute did not provide for a nuisance cause of action against the State.

Case
FL - Wildlife - Chapter 68A-15. Type I Wildlife Management Areas 68 FL ADC 68A-15.004 Fla. Admin. Code r. 68A-15.004 These Florida rules provide that no person shall knowingly or negligently allow any dog to pursue or molest any wildlife during any period in which the taking of such wildlife by the use of dogs is prohibited. No person shall knowingly allow a dog under their care to enter or remain upon a critical wildlife area during any period in which public access is prohibited by the order establishing such area. Administrative
Felgemacher v. Rugg 814 N.Y.S.2d 452 (N.Y.A.D. 4 Dept.,2006) 2006 N.Y. Slip Op. 03196

In this New York case, the plaintiff sued to recover damages for injuries he sustained when defendant's dog jumped onto his back and knocked him to the ground at defendant's service station. The court found that the lower court properly denied that part of defendant's motion for summary judgment for strict liability in harboring a vicious animal. Here, defendant failed to meet her initial burden on the motion with respect to strict liability because she failed to establish as a matter of law that the dog had no vicious propensities where she submitted the deposition testimony that the dog was chained at the place of business to prevent the dog from “jumping on cars. . .”

Case
AL - Assistance Animals - Assistance Animal/Guide Dog Laws Ala.Code 1975 § § 21-7-1 - 10; 3-1-7; § 32-5A-220; § 24-8A-1 - 5; § 13A-11-230 - 235 AL ST § 21-7-1 - 10; § 3-1-7; § 32-5A-220; § 24-8A-1 - 5; § 13A-11-230 - 235 The following statutes comprise the state's relevant service animal, assistance animal, and guide dog laws. Statute
Jones v. Craddock 187 S.E. 558 (N.C. 1936) 210 N.C. 429 (1936)

The plaintiff in Jones v. Craddock , 210 N.C. 429 (N.C. 1936), brought a cause of action for negligent injury to her dog. In this case of first impression, the court embraced, “. . . the modern view that ordinarily dogs constitute a species of property, subject to all the incidents of chattel and valuable domestic animals.” The court determined that plaintiff was entitled to a cause of action for negligence since defendant could have avoided running over plaintiff’s companion animal with a slight turn.

Case

Pages