Results
| Title | Citation | Alternate Citation | Summary | Type |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| VA - Breeder - § 3.2-6500. Definitions (definitions for commercial breeder) | Va. Code Ann. § 3.2-6500 | VA ST § 3.2-6500 | Provides most recent definitions for terms used throughout the rest of the statute, including but not limited to private and public animal shelters, commercial breeder, shelter, pet shop, and kennel. | Statute |
| KY - Louisville/Jefferson County - Title IX: General Regulations (Chapter 91: Animals) | Louisville/Jefferson County Metro Government Code of Ordinances § 91.098 MUTILATION OF ANIMALS |
In Louisville-Jefferson County, Kentucky, no person shall crop a dog’s ears or tail, except a veterinarian. Additionally, no person shall mutilate any animal whether dead or alive; however, this provision does not apply to accepted livestock practices concerning humane slaughter at licensed stockyards, slaughterhouses and meat packing establishments or on the premises of agricultural uses. Penalties are also included for violating these provisions. |
Local Ordinance | |
| Rosche v. Wayne Feed Div. Continental Grain Co. | 447 N.W.2d 94 (1989) | 152 Wis.2d 78 (1989) |
Pig breeder sought damages from feed manufacturer after pigs got sick, died, or became sterile after eating feed. The Court of Appeals held that jury should have been instructed that basic measure of damages for dead and injured livestock was based on market value of affected animals and did not include separate award for unborn litters. Failure to give proper instruction was prejudicial error that required a new trial on the issue of damages. |
Case |
| Saenz v. DOI (vacated by U.S. v. Hardman, 260 F.3d 1199 (10th Cir. 2001)) | (no West citation. Docket No. 00-2166) |
(This case was vacated by United States v. Hardman, 260 F.3d 1199(10th Cir. 2001). Appellant was descended from the Chiricahua tribe of Apache Indians, and, although originally recognized as a tribe, it is not presently recognized. The court affirmed the vacating of defendant's conviction for possessing eagle parts, holding that the present test under RFRA with regard to whether a tribe has been formally recognized bears no relationship whatsoever to whether one sincerely practices Indian religions and is substantially burdened when prohibited from possessing eagle parts. For discussion of Eagle Act, see Detailed Discussion . |
Case | |
| UK - Wildlife - Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2017 | 2017 No. 1012 | These Regulations consolidated the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2010, and made minor modifications. Part 3, regulation 43 makes it an offence (subject to exceptions) to deliberately capture, kill or disturb certain wild animals or to trade in them. Regulation 45 prohibits the use of certain methods of capturing or killing wild animals. | Statute | |
| WY - Hunting - Article 4. Miscellaneous Acts Prohibited (hunter harassment) | W. S. 1977 §§ 23-3-401 to 407 | WY ST §§ 23-3-401 to 407 | This section of Wyoming laws relates to miscellaneous prohibited hunting acts. Included is the state's hunter harassment law, which provides that no person shall with the intent to prevent or hinder the lawful taking of any wildlife. Violation is a "low misdemeanor." Article 4 also includes a 2009 law that prohibits remote hunting that allows a person not physically present to remotely control a weapon to kill wildlife. | Statute |
| SC - Wildlife - § 50-1-270. Liability for gross destruction or injury to wildlife, | Code 1976 § 50-1-270 | SC ST § 50-1-270 | This South Carolina statute provides that any person or public or private entity is liable to the State for the unlawful gross destruction of or injury to wildlife, aquatic life, endangered or threatened species, or the lands or waters owned by the State. For a deliberate or grossly negligent act, the State must be awarded damages of three times the value of the resource affected, plus costs, including attorney's fees. This section does not apply to ordinary agricultural practices. | Statute |
| Altman v. City of High Point | 330 F.3d 194 C.A.4 (N.C. 2003) |
This case arises out of several shooting incidents in the City of High Point, North Carolina. In each incident, a High Point animal control officer shot and killed one or more dogs that were running at large in the city. Plaintiffs, the owners of the animals, brought suit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging that the officers' actions violated their Fourth Amendment rights. The Court of Appeals concluded that the dogs at issue in this case do qualify as property protected by the Fourth Amendment and that the officers seized that property. However, because in each instance the seizure involved was reasonable, it concluded that the officers did not violate the plaintiffs' Fourth Amendment rights. |
Case | |
| Pray v. Whiteskunk | 801 N.W.2d 451 (S.D., 2011) | 2011 S.D. 43; 2011 WL 3207821 (S.D.) |
In this South Dakota case, the plaintiff suffered a broken knee after Defendant's Rottweiler brook loose from its owner and ran toward the street, causing plaintiff to fall. Plaintiff brought an action for damages against both the dog owner and the city, specifically alleging the the city knew the dog was dangerous and failed to enforce its vicious animal ordinance. On appeal of the granting of summary judgment for the city, this court found that plaintiff failed to establish that the action taken by the city caused the harm to Pray or exposed her to greater risks, thereby leaving her in a worse position than she was in before the city took action. While this Court found that the city had actual knowledge of the dog's dangerousness, this alone is insufficient. |
Case |
| KY - Pig, feral - 150.186 Release of hog or pig into the wild prohibited; | KRS § 150.186 | KY ST § 150.186 | This Kentucky law prohibits the release of a hog or pig from the family Suidae into the wild. It also prohibits the importation, possession, or transportation in Kentucky any wild or feral pig, Eurasian or Russian boar, or any hybrid of these, whether born in the wild or captivity. | Statute |