Results
Displaying 71 - 80 of 6638
| Title | Citation | Alternate Citation | Summary | Type |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| England, Wales & Scotland - Wildlife, badgers - Protection of Badgers Act 1992 | 1992 CHAPTER 51 | This Act prohibits the deliberate killing, injuring or capturing of a wild badger; and any interfering with badger setts (and the attempt to do so). General exemptions are provided, and licenses may be issued for the taking and killing of badgers (for example, as obtained for recent badger culls). | Statute | |
| Daughen v. Fox | 539 A.2d 858 (Pa. Super. 1988) |
Plaintiffs brought a claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress and loss of companionship after defendant animal hospital performed unnecessary surgery based on a mix-up of x-rays. The court denied the first claim, finding the defendant's conduct did not meet the "extreme and outrageous" conduct test. With regard to plaintiff's claim for loss of a unique chattel and for loss of the dog's companionship and comfort, the court observed that, under Pennsylvania law, a dog is personal property, and, under no circumstances under the law of Pennsylvania, may there be recovery for loss of companionship due to the death of an animal. |
Case | |
| WY - Cruelty - Consolidated Cruelty Statutes | W.S.1977 § 6-3-1001 - 1010; § 6-4-601 | WY ST § 6-3-1001 - 1010; § 6-4-601 | This compilation of laws contains Wyoming's anti-cruelty provisions that were amended in 2021. Under the new laws, a person commits cruelty to animals if the person knowingly overrides an animal or drives an animal when overloaded; intentionally or knowingly, unnecessarily injures or beats an animal; or knowingly carries an animal in a manner that poses undue risk of injury or death. Additionally, a person has the charge or custody of any animal under circumstances that manifest "extreme indifference" to the animal's safety, health or life, and fails to provide it with listed necessities, abandons the animal, fails to provide the animal with appropriate care in the case of immediate and obvious serious injury or illness also commits cruelty to animals. Other prohibitions include animal fighting, shooting or poisoning livestock or domestic animals on property where the animal is authorized to be. A first offense of cruelty to animals or of a violation of W.S. 6-3-1003 is a misdemeanor punishable by imprisonment for not more than six months, a fine of not more than $750.00, or both, with enhanced penalties for subsequent convictions. Felony cruelty to animals occurs when a person commits cruelty to animals as defined in W.S. 6-3-1002(a)(v) through (ix), that results in the death or required euthanasia of the animal; or (ii) knowingly, and with intent to cause death or undue suffering, beats with cruelty, tortures, torments or mutilates an animal. Such acts incur permanent forfeiture of the animal at issue and imprisonment for not more than two years and/or a fine of up to $5,000. With either misdemeanor or felony convictions, the court may order forfeiture of the animals involved, payment of reasonable costs of animal impoundment, and restraints on future ownership of animals. A bestiality law was also enacted in 2021 that prohibits actors from engaging in sexual acts with animals. Violation is a misdemeanor with punishment of up to one year imprisonment and/or a fine of up to $1,000. | Statute |
| MN - Domestic Violence - 518B.01. Chapter 518B. Domestic Abuse. | M. S. A. § 518B.01 | MN ST § 518B.01 | This law reflects Minnesota's provision for restraining orders in cases of domestic abuse. An amendment in 2010 concerns the care and keeping of a companion animal owed by either petitioner or respondent, and has a provision to allow the court to prevent harm to such animal. As stated in the law in subsection 6(a)(14) and (15), the court may provide relief that includes an order to "(14) direct the care, possession, or control of a pet or companion animal owned, possessed, or kept by the petitioner or respondent or a child of the petitioner or respondent; and (15) direct the respondent to refrain from physically abusing or injuring any pet or companion animal, without legal justification, known to be owned, possessed, kept, or held by either party or a minor child residing in the residence or household of either party as an indirect means of intentionally threatening the safety of such person." | Statute |
| VT - Endangered Species - Chapter 123. Protection of Endangered Species | 10 V.S.A. § 5401 - 10 | VT ST T 10 § 5401 - 10 | These Vermont statutes set out the state's endangered species provisions, including the related definitions, rules for listing species, and regulations for establishing the committees. Violation of the provisions against taking incur criminal enforcement and restitution. Interestingly, there is a provision that provides for the location of listed endangered species to be kept confidential. | Statute |
| OK - Dog bite - Oklahoma Dog Bite Laws | 4 Okl. St. Ann. § 41 - 47 | OK ST T. 4 § 41 - 47 | These statutes comprise Oklahoma's Dangerous Dog Laws. The state imposes strict liability for dog bites; "the owner or owners of any dog shall be liable for damages to the full amount of any damages sustained when his dog, without provocation, bites or injures any person while such person is in or on a place where he has a lawful right to be." Further, any person may lawfully kill a dog who is chasing that person's livestock. An owner of a dog that has been adjudged "dangerous" must register the dog, enclose the dog except when out on a leash with muzzle, and post $50,000 in liability insurance. An owner who does not follow the provisions not only faces the confiscation of his or her dog, but may also be subject to a one-year misdemeanor. | Statute |
| In re: JACK D. STOWERS, DOING BUSINESS AS SUGAR CREEK KENNELS | 56 Agric. Dec. 279 (1996) | 1996 WL 881664 (U.S.D.A.) | Willfulness is not required for cease and desist orders or for monetary fines; it is only required for license revocation if agency has not given respondent written notice of violations and opportunity to come into compliance with regulations. (Chief Administrative Law Judge Victor W. Palmer imposed a civil penalty of $15,000.00, issued a cease and desist order, and revoked Respondent's license after finding that Respondent: failed to allow department officials to inspect its facility; failed to maintain complete and accurate records of the acquisition, disposition, and identification of dogs; failed to properly identify dogs; failed to hold dogs for the required period of time; offered dogs for transportation in enclosures that did not conform to structural strength and space requirements; failed to construct and maintain primary enclosures for dogs that protect the dogs from injury; failed to deliver health certificates for dogs transported interstate; failed to provide adequate veterinary care; and obtained random source dogs from individuals who had not bred and raised the dogs on their own premises.) | Case |
| SAM LAMBERT & ANDRIA LAMBERT v. SALLY MORRIS & STEVE HAIR | --- S.E.2d ----, 2018 WL 6314142 (N.C. Ct. App. Dec. 4, 2018) | Plaintiffs Sam Lambert and Andria Lambert appeal the trial court's granting of summary judgment in this lost dog case. Specifically, plaintiffs filed an action against defendants Sally Morris and Steve Hair alleging conversion, civil conspiracy, unfair and deceptive trade practices, and intentional or reckless infliction of emotional distress, as well as injunctive relief and damages related to the disappearance of their dog, Biscuit. Biscuit went missing in August of 2015. After searching for Biscuit for several days, plaintiffs contacted the local animal control and posted Biscuit as a lost dog on animal control's unofficial Facebook page. Over a month later, a citizen brought Biscuit (who had no microchip or collar on) to animal control where she was placed in a holding cell. After the 72-hour hold, Biscuit was transferred to the Humane Society. Biscuit was spayed and examined by a veterinarian, and a picture was posted on the Humane Society website. At the vet exam, tumors were discovered in Biscuit's mammary glands and so surgery was performed, some of it paid for by defendant Hair. Hair eventually adopted Biscuit. Almost a year later, plaintiffs found an old picture of Biscuit on the Humane Society Facebook page and attempted to claim Biscuit. Defendant Hair learned of this and requested that plaintiffs reimburse for veterinary expenses, to which they agreed. After some discussion, Hair learned plaintiffs had over 14 dogs and refused to return Biscuit without a home inspection. That caused a heated discussion and the meeting between plaintiffs and defendant ended without the dog returning. About a month later, plaintiffs filed suit against defendants, whereupon defendants filed a motion for summary judgment. On appeal here, the court first noted that, per state law, an animal shelter hold a lost or abandoned dog for at least 72-hours. Here, animal control satisfied its legal duty by keeping Biscuit in custody for the required holding period before transferring her to the Humane Society. Thus, plaintiffs lost any ownership rights to Biscuit after the 72-hour mark. Moreover, almost a month had passed between the time Biscuit was taken in by animal control and the formal adoption by defendant Hair at the Humane Society. As a result, the court found that Hair was the rightful owner of Biscuit and was entitled to negotiate with plaintiffs as he saw fit. Thus, no genuine issues of material fact existed for plaintiffs at trial. Accordingly, the trial court did not err in granting summary judgment to defendants and dismissing plaintiffs’ claims. | Case | |
| State v. McDonald | 110 P.3d 149 (Ut. 2005) | 2005 UT App. 86 |
A woman was convicted of fifty-eight counts of animal cruelty after animal control officers found fifty-eight diseased cats in her trailer. The trial court sentenced the woman to ninety days of jail time for each count, but revised the sentence to include two days of jail time, two years of formal probation, and twelve and a half years of informal probation. The Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction, but found that fourteen and a half years probation exceeded the court's statutory authority. |
Case |
| Hetrick v. Ohio Dep't of Agric. | --- N.E.3d ---- 2017 WL 4464371 (Ohio Ct. App.,2017) | 2017-Ohio-8118 | In this case, the court of appeals reversed the trial court's decision to grant appellee Hetrick's dangerous wild animal (DWA) permits. Hetrick was the owner of DWA's on his property, and according to an Ohio law he was required to register the DWA's and apply for permits before a certain statutory deadline. This court held that the trial court abused its discretion in finding that the Ohio Department of Agriculture (ODA) lacked a statutory basis to deny the application for a rescue facility permit on timeliness grounds but did not err in so finding on caging and care grounds. Further, the court reversed, in part, the judgment of the Wood County Court of Common Pleas in the rescue facility permit case; reversed, in toto, the judgment of the lower court in the wildlife shelter permit case; and with this decision, reinstated the ODA's denial of both permits. Judgments reversed. | Case |