Results
| Title | Citation | Alternate Citation | Agency Citation | Summary | Type |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| MI - Equine Liability - Chapter 691. Judiciary. Equine Activity Liability Act | MCLA 691.1661 - 1667 | MI ST 691.1661 - 1667 | This act stipulates that an equine sponsor or professional, or any other person, is immune from liability for the death or injury of a participant, which resulted from the inherent risks of equine activities. However, there are exceptions to this rule: a person will be held liable for injuries if he or she commits a negligent act or omission that results in the proximate cause of injury or death, and if he or she fails to make reasonable and prudent efforts in ensuring the safety of the participant. In addition, a person will also be held liable for the injury of an equine activity participant if he or she is injured on the land or at a facility due to a dangerous latent condition of which was known to the equine sponsor, professional or other person. | Statute | |
| U.S. v. Zak | 486 F.Supp.2d 208 (D.Mass., 2007) | 2007 WL 1427442 (D.Mass.) |
Defendant pleaded guilty to three counts under the MBTA after agents determined that he killed 250 great blue herons; he then went to trial on the remaining counts under the MBTA and BGEPA related to his killing of a juvenile bald eagle on his commercial fish growing operation. On appeal, defendant contended that he cannot be found guilty under the MBTA unless the government proved beyond a reasonable doubt that he knew the bird he was shooting was protected and intentionally shot it with that knowledge (defendant stated that he shot a "big brown hawk'). The court disagreed, finding the overwhelming authority requires no such specific scienter on the part of the actor. With regard to defendant's contention that the government failed to prove the "knowingly" prong of the BGEPA, the court was equally unpersuaded. The evidence demonstrated beyond a reasonable doubt that defendant knowingly shot the eagle as it sat perched on the dead pine tree on the edge of his property, regardless of whether he knew the juvenile bird was an eagle or, as he said, “a big brown hawk.” |
Case | |
| AL - Equine - Immunity of those involved in equine activities. | Ala. Code 1975 § 6-5-337 | AL ST § 6-5-337 | This Alabama statute embodies the legislature's recognition that persons who participate in equine activities may incur injuries as a result of the risks involved in those activities. This statute provides that for the immediate preservation of the public peace, health, and safety, and to encourage equine activities, civil liability of those involved in equine activities is limited by law. Liability is not limited when the equine sponsor intentionally injures a participant or engages in willful or wanton behavior that causes injury or death. | Statute | |
| OK - Importation - Subchapter 25. Wildlife Classified as Domesticated and Exempt | OK ADC 800:25-25-1 - 3 | OAC 800:25-25-1 - 3 | The purpose of this Subchapter is to establish a list of wildlife that are to be considered domesticated and, therefore, exempt from licensing and permit requirements of the Department. | Administrative | |
| State v. Arnold | 147 N.C. App. 670 (N.C. App. 2001) | 147 N.C. App. 670 |
Defendant appealed from a conviction of participating as a spectator at an exhibition featuring dog fighting alleging that the statute under which he was convicted is unconstitutionally vague, overbroad and an invalid exercise of police power. The appellate court found the statute to be constitutional. Defendant also argued that the trial court erred in failing to dismiss the charge for insufficient evidence, however the appellate court found that there is substantial evidence to support the conviction. |
Case | |
| Sentencia STC1926-2023 | Sentencia STC1926-2023 | Romeo and Salvador, two beloved family dogs that found themselves in the center of a heartbreaking divorce. The divorce resulted in the family judge ordering the foreclosure of the dogs in the divorce proceeding. The plaintiff filed a writ of protection or "Recurso de Tutela" before the Chamber of Civil Cassation of the Supreme Court of Justice to protect her rights to family unity, free personality development, and health. Furthermore, she argued that the lower court decision had violated not just her rights but her children's rights, who had developed a filial bond with the dogs, as they are sentient beings and not just mere property. The Court denied the "tutela." It affirmed the lower court decision allowing foreclosure upon companion animals, holding that the "tutela" was not the appropriate legal mechanism to protect procedural guarantees. In his dissenting opinion, Magistrate Aroldo Wilson Quiróz stated that the court had missed a valuable opportunity to address the issue of the multispecies families in Colombia. This novel legal concept is supported under Art. 42 of the Constitution, and that it was the responsibility of the court, as the body of last instance, to delve into this subject, pointing out the fact that even though animals are considered property, they are also sentient beings in the eyes of the law with rights that limit the right to own them. Like in other family cases, the magistrate suggested that courts should address issues such as custody, visitation rights, and alimony payments when companion animals are involved. | Case | ||
| FL - Restaurant - 509.233. Public food service establishment requirements; local exemption for dogs | West's F. S. A. § 509.233 | FL ST § 509.233 | Florida was one of the first states to enact a law on dogs in restaurants in 2006. The law allows a local unit of government to adopt an ordinance that acts as an exemption to the state's Food and Drug Administration Food Code. Once the local exemption is passed, a restaurant can apply for a permit to allow dogs in the outdoor dining spaces. Certain things must be included in the ordinance such as a requirement that staff wash after touching pets, a rule that patrons keep dogs on leashes and under control, a prohibition against dogs on chairs, tables, or other furnishings, signs that list the rules for employees and patrons, and a clean-up station in the outdoor dining area. There are also reporting requirements by the local governments to the State of Florida under the law. The city or county must also have a system in place to document and respond to complaints. | Statute | |
| MT - Great Falls - Title 6: Animals (Chapter 8: Animals) | Great Falls, Montana Code of Ordinances, Chapter 8: Animals, §§ 6.8.070 - 6.8.080, 6.8.310 |
In Great Falls, Montana, it is unlawful for any person, persons, or family to keep, harbor or maintain in or on the same premises a total of more than 2 dogs over 6 months of age or 2 cats over 6 months of age without first obtaining a multiple animal permit. A person found violating this section is guilty of a misdemeanor, which is punishable by a maximum fine of $500.00. Other penalties may also apply. |
Local Ordinance | ||
| Hopson v. Kreps | 622 F.2d 1375 (9th Cir. 1980) |
Action brought on behalf of Alaskan Eskimos which challenged the validity of the Department of Commerce regulations adopted pursuant to IWC Act. Plaintiffs claim is the the Commission exceeded its jurisdiction under the Convention when it eliminated the native subsistence exemption for Alaskan Eskimos. The Court reverses and remands the districts courts dismissal of the action. |
Case | ||
| NE - Predators - Article 5. Regulations and Prohibited Acts. (e) Damage by Wildlife | Neb. Rev. St. § 37-559 to 563 | NE ST § 37-559 to 563 | This statute provides that a farmer or rancher may kill a predator that threatens agricultural or livestock interests without first having obtained a permit. The provision does not allow a farmer or rancher to destroy those species protected under the federal Endangered Species Act, the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act, and other listed federal wildlife acts. | Statute |