Results
| Title | Citation | Alternate Citation | Summary | Type |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| MI - Dangerous - Chapter 287. Animal Industry. Dangerous Animals. | M. C. L. A. 287.321 - 323 | MI ST 287.321 - 323 | This Michigan statute defines "dangerous animal," which means a dog or other animal that bites or attacks a person, or a dog that bites or attacks and causes serious injury or death to another dog while the other dog is on the property or under the control of its owner. However, a dangerous animal does not include any of the following: an animal that bites or attacks a person who is knowingly trespassing on the property of the animal's owner; an animal that bites or attacks a person who provokes or torments the animal; or an animal that is responding in a manner that an ordinary and reasonable person would conclude was designed to protect a person if that person is engaged in a lawful activity or is the subject of an assault. | Statute |
| GA - Ordinances - Jurisdiction and duties of local governments | Ga. Code Ann., § 4-8-22 | GA ST § 4-8-22 | This Georgia statute provides authority for local governing units to enforce this article. This statute further establishes that the local government shall designate an individual as a dog control officer to aid in the administration and enforcement of the provisions of this article; the dog control officer does not have the authority to make arrests unless the person is a law enforcement officer. Additionally, this article also allows local governments to make arrangements with each other for consolidation of dog control services. | Statute |
| Eslin v. County of Suffolk | 795 N.Y.S. 2d 349 (2005) | 18 A.D.3d 698 (N.Y.,2005) |
A woman was horseback riding at a ranch in New York and was injured when she fell off the horse. The woman had signed a Horse Rental Agreement and Liability Release Form before the accident. The court determined that the rider assumed the risk of injury and the lower court's decision to deny defendant's motion for summary judgment was reversed. |
Case |
| Savage v. Prator | 921 So.2d 51 (La., 2006) | 2006 WL 136307 (La. 2006), |
Two Louisiana "game clubs" filed an action for declaratory judgment and injunctive relief against parish commission and parish sheriff's office after being informed by the sheriff that an existing parish ordinance prohibiting cockfighting would be enforced. The clubs contended that the ordinance was violative of the police power reserved explicitly to the state (the state anti-cruelty provision is silent with regard to cockfighting). The First Judicial District Court, Parish of Caddo granted the clubs' request for a preliminary injunction. The Supreme Court reversed the injunction and remanded the matter, finding that the parish ordinance prohibiting cockfighting did not violate general law or infringe upon State's police powers in violation of Constitution. |
Case |
| Metal dirty cage with a night monkey in it. | Slideshow Images | |||
| NE - Hunting, Internet - § 37-571, 37-572, 37-573. Hunt through the Internet | Neb. Rev. St. § 37-571, 37-572, 37-573 | NE ST § 37-571, 37-572, 37-573 | These statute prohibits internet hunting and the hosting of internet hunting within the state of Nebraska. Any person who violates subsection (1) or subsection (2) of section 37-572 is guilty of a Class II misdemeanor. | Statute |
| LA - Ecoterrorism - Chapter 2. Miscellaneous Crimes and Offenses. | LA R.S. 14:228, 228.1 | This law is Louisiana's interference with animal research facilities or animal management facilities law. It is unlawful for any person to: intentionally release, steal, or otherwise cause the loss of any animal from an animal research facility or an animal management facility. to damage, vandalize, or steal any property from or on an animal research facility or an animal management facility to obtain access by false pretenses for the purpose of performing prohibited acts; to break and enter with the intent to destroy, alter, duplicate, or obtain unauthorized possession of records, data, materials, equipment, or animals; to enter or remain on an animal research facility or an animal management facility with the intent to commit prohibited acts; or to knowingly obtain or exert unauthorized control, by theft or deception, over records, data, material, equipment, or animals. A person violating this law shall be fined not more than $5,000 or imprisoned, with or without hard labor, for not more than one year, or both. A companion section (228.1) prohibits the unauthorized release of any animal, bird, or aquatic species which has been lawfully confined for agriculture, science, research, commerce, public propagation, protective custody, or education. | Statute | |
| DE - Endangered Species - CHAPTER 6. ENDANGERED SPECIES | 7 Del.C. § 601 - 605 | DE ST TI 7 § 601 - 605 | Delaware prohibits the importation, transportation, possession, or sale of any part, hide or an endangered species of fish or wildlife. Delaware also prohibits the intent to import, transport, or sell any part or hide of an endangered species. The only lawful way to take an endangered species is by a license or permit from the Division of Fish and Wildlife and violation of this statute is a class A environmental misdemeanor. | Statute |
| State v. Lesoing-Dittoe | 693 N.W.2d 261 (Neb. 2005) | 269 Neb. 317 (2005) |
A married couple owned a pet dog that had a history of injuring other dogs. The married couple's dog injured a neighbors dog and, under a Nebraska Statute, was ordered to be destroyed. The Supreme Court of Nebraska reversed the decision holding the penalty was unreasonable. |
Case |
| Taylor v. Howren | 606 S.E.2d 74 (Ga.App., 2004) | 2004 WL 2283815, 270 Ga.App. 226 |
A family friend wanted to ride a horse and the horse owner told him it was rideable, despite knowing the horse was not fully trained yet. The family friend sued after being kicked in the eye, knocked unconscious and paralyzed by the horse. The Court of Appeals reversed the trial court's entry of summary judgment for the horse owner on the basis that there was still a genuine issue of material fact as to the horse owner's immunity under the Equine Activities Act. |
Case |