Results
| Title | Citation | Alternate Citation | Summary | Type |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Barger v. Jimerson | 276 P.2d 744 (Colo. 1954) | 130 Colo. 459 (1954) |
In order for liability to attach in an action for damages for personal injuries resulting from a dog attack, defendants had to have notice of the vicious propensities of their dog. Even though the dog had never attacked a person before, a natural fierceness or disposition to mischief was sufficient to classify the dog as "vicious." Finally, it is permissible for the jury to consider the loss of earning capacity of plaintiff resulting from the injuries as an element of damages. |
Case |
| CA - Dog, dangerous - § 31625. Seizure and impoundment pending hearing | West's Ann.Cal.Food & Agric.Code § 31625 | CA FOOD & AG § 31625 | This California statute allows an animal control officer or law enforcement officer to seize and impound the dog pending hearing if there is probable cause to believe the dog poses an immediate threat to public safety. The owner or keeper of the dog shall be liable to the city or county where the dog is impounded for the costs and expenses of keeping the dog, if the dog is later adjudicated potentially dangerous or vicious. | Statute |
| EU - Fur - Regulation (EC) No 1523/2007 (dog and cat fur ban) | Regulation (EC) No 1523/2007 | Statute | ||
| Excerpt Federal Criminal Code of Mexico | Código Penal Federal de Mexico | This excerpt contains the provisions of the Federal Code of Mexico within "Crimes Against the Environment and Environmental Management." It contains a dedicated chapter to biodiversity, where it gives special protection to wildlife. It does not mention protection of domestic animals. However, it contains provisions prohibiting dog fighting (Article 419 Bis). According to Article 1, this code applies to federal crimes committed within the country. | Statute | |
| U.S. v. Apollo Energies, Inc. | 611 F.3d 679 (C.A.10 (Kan.), 2010) | 2010 WL 2600502 (C.A.10 (Kan.)) |
Appellants, Apollo Energies, Inc. and Dale Walker, were charged with violating the Migratory Bird Treaty Act after an agent with the USFWS discovered dead migratory birds lodged in each appellant's "heater-treater," a piece of equipment used in the course of appellants' Kansas oil drilling businesses, on several occasions. At trial, both Apollo and Walker were convicted of misdemeanor violations for "taking" or "possessing" migratory birds. On appeal, Apollo and Walker contested that (1) the MBTA is not a strict liability crime or, (2) if it is a strict liability crime, the MBTA is unconstitutional as applied to their conduct. Bound by a previous holding that found misdemeanor violations of the MBTA are strict liability crimes, the court concluded that the MBTA includes no mens rea requirement. As to Appellants' second contention challenging the constitutionality of the Act, the court concluded that while the Act is not unconstitutionally vague, "the MBTA requires a defendant to proximately cause the statute's violation for the statute to pass constitutional muster. |
Case |
| Palila v. Hawaii Dep't of Land & Natural Resources | 639 F.2d 495 (9th Cir. 1981) |
The action alleged that defendants, Hawaii Department of Land and Natural Resources and chairman, violated the Endangered Species Act by maintaining feral sheep and goats in an endangered bird's critical habitat. Defendant had maintained feral sheep and goats within the critical habitat of the endangered palila bird. The practice degraded the bird's habitat. The court upheld summary judgment for the plaintiff, finding that maintenance of the herd constituted a taking under the Act. |
Case | |
| AZ - Hunting - § 17-316. Interference with rights of hunters; classification; civil action; exceptions | A. R. S. § 17-316 | AZ ST § 17-316 | This law represents Arizona's hunter harassment law. Under the law, it is a class 2 misdemeanor for a person while in a hunting area to intentionally interfere with, prevent or disrupt the lawful taking of wildlife as defined under the law. It is a class 3 misdemeanor for a person to enter or remain on a designated hunting area on any public or private lands or waters or state lands including state trust lands with the intent to interfere with, prevent or disrupt the lawful taking of wildlife. "Incidental interference" arising from lawful activity by public land users is not unlawful under this section. | Statute |
| Michigan Compiled Laws 1929: Chapter 285: Section 1 | Mich. Comp. Laws ch. 285, § 1 (1929) | Chapter 285, entitled "An act for the more effectual prevention of cruelty to animals," concerns Michigan's Law about the treatment of animals from 1929. The act covers what qualifies as cruelty to animals and what is the punishment for crime of cruelty to animals. | Statute | |
| Ecuador - Farm animals - Organic Code of agricultural health | Ley Organica de Sanidad Agropecuaria de Ecuador | The organic code of agricultural health of 2017 has as its primary objective to 1) prevent the entry, dissemination, and establishment of pests and diseases; promote animal welfare; and 2) control and eradicate pests and diseases that affect plants and animals and that could represent a phytosanitary and animal health risk. This law creates the Regulatory agency for Phytosanitary and Zoosanitary Control. This agency is responsible for regulating and controlling animal health and welfare, plant health, and food to maintain and improve the adequate conditions of agricultural production. | Statute | |
| Wyoming Farm Burearu v. Babbitt | 199 F.3d 1224 (10th Cir. 2000) | 49 ERC 1985, 30 Envtl. L. Rep. 20,289, 2000 CJ C.A.R. 434 (2000) |
The State Farm Bureaus (a national farm organization)), researchers, and environmental groups appealed from decision of United States and federal agencies to introduce experimental population of gray wolves in a national park and central Idaho. The United States District Court for the District of Wyoming struck down the Department of Interior's final wolf introduction rules and ordered reintroduced wolves removed. In reversing the lower court's decision, the Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit held that the possibility that individual wolves from existing wolf populations could enter experimental population areas did not violate provision of Endangered Species Act requiring that such populations remain "geographically separate." Further, the fact that the promulgated rules treated all wolves, including naturally occurring wolves, found within designated experimental population areas as nonessential experimental animals did not violate ESA. |
Case |