Results
| Title | Citation | Alternate Citation | Agency Citation | Summary | Type |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| State v. Gilchrist | 418 P.3d 689 (Okla., 2017) | 2017 OK CR 25, 2017 WL 5196712 (Okla., 2017) | The Appellant State of Oklahoma appeals the Grant County District Court's granting of defendant's motion to quash counts 2-13 of Cruelty to Animals violation of 21 O.S.2011, § 1685. Defendant was charged with 13 counts of animal cruelty stemming from maltreatment of 13 dogs at his property. Evidence at the preliminary hearing showed that two of the dogs were chained to small, metal shelters, and 11 were individually penned, all in 100 degree heat. No dogs had adequate water and rotting carcasses were found within reach of the dogs. According to responding veterinarians, all dogs were extremely dehydrated and in need of immediate medical care and one dog had gone into shock (it later died). Most of the dogs were malnourished and poorly conditioned with parasite-infested wounds. At district court, defendant argued that he could only be charged with a single count of Cruelty to Animals because the dogs were found all in one location and had been abandoned for approximately the same time period. The district court acquiesced and granted defendant's motion to quash, finding no caselaw on point. On appeal, the Supreme Court found the district court's interpretation of 21 O.S.2011, § 1685 wrong as a matter of law. The section repeatedly use the phrase "any animal" to show that the intent to address acts of abuse against any particular animal. The Court observed that the state filed a count for each of the dogs at defendant's property because each dog needed to be separately fed and watered. "Gilchrist deprived all thirteen dogs of the food, water and shelter necessary to avoid the grotesque suffering observed at the scene." Thus, the Court found the district court abused its discretion in granting defendant's motion to quash. | Case | |
| OR - Endangered Species - Chapter 496. Application, Administration and Enforcement of Wildlife Laws. | O. R. S. § 496.171 - 996; 498.026 | OR ST § 496.171 - 996; 498.026 | These Oregon statutes set out the definitions and rules relating to the Oregon endangered species laws. Specifically, Oregon law provides rules for listing based on the federal ESA list as well as the state criteria. Violation of the law constitutes a Class A misdemeanor with an enhanced felony provision for subsequent convictions involving certain species (i.e., taking of game fish with a total value of $200 or more or the taking of antelope, black bear, cougar, deer, elk, moose, mountain goat or mountain sheep in violation of the wildlife laws) within a ten-year period. | Statute | |
| Pet Fair, Inc. v. Humane Society of Greater Miami | 583 So.2d 407 (Fl. 1991) | 16 Fla. L. Weekly D1986 (1991) |
The owner of allegedly neglected or mistreated domestic animals that were seized by police could not be required to pay for costs of animals' care after it was determined that owner was in fact able to adequately provide for the animals, and after the owner declined to re-possess the animals. The Humane Society can require an owner to pay it costs associated with caring for an animal if the owner re-claims the animal, but not if the animal is adopted out to a third party.
|
Case | |
| MO - Pet Shop - Animal Care and Facilities Licensing and Regulation (Chapter 273) | V.A.M.S. 273.325 - 359 | MO ST 273.325 - 359 | Under these Missouri statutes, a license is required to operate animal boarding facilities, pet shops, pounds, dealers and commercial breeders. The canine cruelty prevention act makes it the crime of canine cruelty if the person poses a substantial risk to the health and welfare of animals in the person's custody. A violation is a misdemeanor. | Statute | |
| Harvey v. Southern Pac. Co. | 80 P. 1061 (1905) | 46 Or. 505 (1905) |
This is a case involving a train hitting a cow. This case involves a judgment for defendant based upon plaintiff's common-law negligence complaint in that defendant ran its train upon and killed the plaintiff's cow. The appellate court upheld defendant's motion for a directed verdict where plaintiff alleged negligence on the part of defendant for failing to fence in its track. |
Case | |
| Holland v Crisafulli | [1998] QSC 199 |
A dog, on two separate occasions, entered residential premises, turned over a cage and killed a guinea pig. The applicant claimed that this was insufficient evidence for the dog to be declared 'dangerous'. The judge found that a dog's propensity to pursue one animal should not be distinguished from a propensity to pursue all animals and that the finding of the dog as 'dangerous' should stand. |
Case | ||
| Free v. Jordan | 10 S.W.2d 19 (Ark. 1928) | 178 Ark. 168 (1928) |
In a replevin action to recover possession of a lost dog from its finder, the court reversed and remanded the case so a jury could determine whether the statute of limitations was tolled due to the defendant's alleged fraudulent concealment of his possession of the dog. |
Case | |
| NV - Research - 574.205. Requirement to offer dog or cat for adoption before euthanization; immunity from civil liability | N. R. S. 574.205 | NV ST 574.205 | This Nevada law, enacted in 2015, mandates that a research facility that intends to euthanize a dog or cat for any purpose other than scientific, medical or educational research shall, before euthanizing the dog or cat, offer the dog or cat for adoption if the dog or cat is appropriate for adoption. This adoption may be completed through an adoption program of the research facility or through a collaborative agreement with an animal rescue organization. | Statute | |
| US - Marine Mammals - Endangered Fish and Wildlife; Notice of Intent to Prepare an Environmental Impact Statement | 2005 WL 41294 (F.R.) | FR Doc. 05-525 |
NMFS will be preparing an EIS to analyze the potential impacts of applying new criteria in guidelines to determine what constitutes a ``take'' of a marine mammal under the Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA) and Endangered Species Act (ESA) as a result of exposure to anthropogenic noise in the marine environment. This notice describes the proposed action and possible alternatives and also describes the proposed scoping process. |
Administrative | |
| NM - Endangered Species - Chapter 17. Game and Fish and Outdoor Recreation. | N. M. S. A. 1978, § 17-2-37 to 17-2-46 | NM ST § 17-2-37 to 17-2-46 | These statutes comprise the New Mexico Wildlife Conservation Act. Included in the provisions are definitions related to the statute, legislative policies, and regulations for listing or delisting species. Violation of the Act constitutes a misdemeanor and can incur a penalty from $50 - 1,000 depending on the categorization of the species taken. | Statute |