Results
| Title | Citation | Alternate Citation | Agency Citation | Summary | Type |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| LA - Morgan City - Breed - Sec. 18-65. Pit bulls prohibited. | MORGAN CITY, LA., CODE OF ORDINANCES § 18-65 (2000) |
Morgan City, Louisiana makes it unlawful to own, possess, keep, exercise control over, maintain, harbor, transport, or sell any pit bull, with exceptions. For example, if the owner has a permit for a pit bull on or before July 25, 2006, who has a pit bull license, and who maintains the pit bull in compliance with the pit bull license requirements, may keep a pit bull within the city. If the owner does not comply with the requirements, the pit bull could be impounded and destroyed. |
Local Ordinance | ||
| US - Importation - Subpart F. Wildlife Declarations | 50 C.F.R. § 14.61 to .64 | Except as otherwise provided by the regulations of this subpart, importers or their agents must file with the Service a completed Declaration for Importation or Exportation of Fish or Wildlife (Form 3-177), signed by the importer or the importer's agent, upon the importation of any wildlife at the place where Service clearance under section 14.52 is requested. | Administrative | ||
| Dog Federation of Wisconsin, Inc. v. City of South Milwaukee | 178 Wis.2d 353, 504 N.W.2d 375 (Wis.App.,1993) |
This appeal is by the Dog Federation of Wisconsin and others who contest a City of South Milwaukee ordinance that imposes restrictions on the ownership and keeping of “pit bulls.” The Federation claims that the “pit bull” aspects of the ordinance are facially invalid because: the definition of “pit bull” is impermissibly vague; the ordinance is overbroad; and the ordinance violates their right to equal protection. The court found that reference to recognized breeds provides sufficient specifics to withstand a vagueness challenge. With regard to equal protection, the court held that the ordinance is founded on “substantial distinctions” between the breeds of dog covered by the ordinance and other breeds of dog. Moreover, the ordinance is “germane” to the underlying purpose of the ordinance to protect persons and animals from dangerous dogs. Finally, the ordinance applies equally to the affected class of persons owning or keeping pit bulls. |
Case | ||
| City of Sausalito v. Brian O'Neill | 2002 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 12457 (N.D. Cal. 2002) |
In considering standing under the MMPA, the court found that the plaintiff city had only pure economic injury and had not shown that any harm would result to marine mammals protected under the MMPA. |
Case | ||
| AK - Divorce - § 25.24.160. Judgment | AS § 25.24.160 | AK ST § 25.24.160 | Alaska became the first state to allow judges to provide for “well-being” of pets in divorce actions. Governor Bill Walker signed HB 147 into law on October 2016, and becoming effective January 17, 2017. The law amends AS 25.24.160 contained in Chapter 24 on Divorce and Dissolution of Marriage. The amendment states: “[i]n a judgment in an action for divorce or action declaring a marriage void or at any time after judgment, the court may provide . . . (5) if an animal is owned, for the ownership or joint ownership of the animal, considering the well-being of the animal." Courts in most states have limited awarding pets in marriage dissolution based on traditional property classifications with only a few cases considering a pet's "best interests." This law is unique in that it gives the judge the authority to go beyond a traditional property paradigm for pets when dividing marital property. | Statute | |
| WY - Invasive Species - Article 2. Aquatic Invasive Species | W. S. 1977 §§ 23-4-201 to 206 | WY ST §§ 23-4-201 to 206 | These Wyoming statutes prohibit introducing an aquatic invasive species into any waters of the state. No one may launch any conveyance without first complying with aquatic invasive species prevention requirements. A violation is a high misdemeanor. | Statute | |
| SC - Fur - Article 12. Trapping Furbearing Animals, Regulation of Dealers, Buyers, Processors, | Code 1976 § 50-11-2400 - 2575 | SD ST § 50-11-2400 - 2575 | In South Carolina, a state hunting license and a commercial fur license are required to sell or take furbearing animals for commercial purposes. Trappers may only set traps during trapping season, must show proof of ownership of property or permission to use property where traps are set, must visit his traps daily, and remove any animals caught in the trap. A violation of these statutes is a misdemeanor, which may result in a fine, imprisonment, and/or revocation of a license. | Statute | |
| Diamond v. Chakrabarty | 447 U.S. 303 (1980) | 100 S. Ct. 2204; 65 L. Ed. 2d 144 (1980) |
In this case, the Supreme Court of the United States asserts that patent protection may exist for "anything under the sun," so long as it is created by man. This has permitted genetically engineered animals to be patentable subject matter in the United States. For more information on patent protection in the United States, see the Patent Act. |
Case | |
| Adrian v. Vonk | 807 N.W.2d 119 (S.D. 2012) | 2011 S.D. 84 (2011); 2011 WL 6260860 (S.D.) |
Ranchers sued State for damage to their property from prairie dogs from public lands. The Supreme Court held that statutes governing State's participation in programs to control prairie dogs did not contain express waivers of sovereign immunity; State's statutorily-mandated actions in controlling prairie dogs were discretionary acts, and ranchers' action was barred by sovereign immunity; and statute did not provide for a nuisance cause of action against the State. |
Case |