Results
Displaying 101 - 110 of 6637
| Title | Citation | Alternate Citation | Summary | Type |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| US - Whales - Chapter 14A. Whale Conservation and Protection. | 16 U.S.C.A. § 917 - 917d | These statutes extended federal authority and responsibility over the conservation and protection of all mammals including certain species of whales. The statutes also granted the Secretary of Commerce with authority to complete a comprehensive study of all whales in an effort to conserve and protect them effectively. | Statute | |
| DE - Hunting, Internet - § 704(h). Prohibited hunting and trapping devices and methods; confiscation of devices; primitive weapon season | 7 Del.C. § 704 | Del. Code Ann. tit. 7, § 704 (West) | Section (h) of this Delaware law on prohibited hunting methods prohibits "Internet hunting." Under the law, no person shall operate, provide, sell, use, or offer to operate, provide, sell, or use any computer software or service that allows a person not physically present at a hunt site to remotely control a weapon that could be used to take a live animal or bird by remote operation, including, but not limited to, weapons or devices set up to fire through the use of the Internet or through a remote control device. The statute also regulates trapping. Per the law, no person shall make use of any pitfall, deadfall, scaffold, cage, snare, trap, net, pen, baited hook, lure, urine or baited field or any other similar device for the purpose of injuring, capturing or killing birds or animals protected by the laws of this State, except as otherwise specified. | 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 |
| TN - Cruelty, reporting - Part 4. Cross Reporting of Animal Cruelty | T. C. A. § 38-1-401 - 403 | Tenn. Code Ann. § 38-1-402 - 403 | This Tennessee statute requires employees of child or adult protective service agencies to report animal cruelty, abuse, or neglect that they know or reasonably suspect to have occurred in their county. The statute also describes the amount of time that an employee may have to make a report and ensures the confidentiality of the employee. The statute also makes clear that it does not impose a duty on the employee to investigate known or reasonably suspected animal cruelty, abuse, or neglect. | Statute |
| Carroll v. Cnty. of Monroe | 712 F.3d 649 (2d Cir. 2013) | The Plaintiff-Appellant appeals a decision/order by the lower court to deny her motion to set aside the jury verdict or grant a new trial. At the original trial, a jury found plaintiff failed to prove her 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claim that the shooting of her dog during the execution of a search warrant was an unconstitutional seizure in violation of the Fourth Amendment. Plaintiff's dog was shot during a "no-knock" search warrant at plaintiff's residence, but the warrant team was aware that a dog would be present during the search. On appeal, this court held that the plaintiff was not entitled to a new trial because she failed to provide any “legally sufficient evidentiary basis” to show that the jury would find in her favor. The court believed that it was unlikely that a jury would find in her favor because of the fact that the dog was killed during a “no-knock” search of the home and the dog “quickly and aggressively” ran towards the police officer after he entered the home. Although the court agreed that the officers should have advised a plan to deal with the dog in a non-lethal way, it maintained that a jury would unlikely find that the officer’s use of force was unreasonable given the circumstances of this case. Affirmed. | Case | |
| VA - Trusts - § 64.2-726. Trust for care of animal | VA Code Ann. § 64.2-726 | VA ST § 64.2-726 | This Virginia pet trust law becomes effective July 1, 2006. The law provides that a trust may be created to provide for the care of an animal alive during the settlor's lifetime. The trust terminates upon the death of the animal or, if the trust was created to provide for the care of more than one animal alive during the settlor's lifetime, upon the death of the last surviving animal. | Statute |
| OK - Research - Chapter 13. Use of Unclaimed Animals for Scientific Investigation and Education. | 4 Okl. St. Ann. § 391 - 402 | OK ST T. 4 § 391 - 402 | These Oklahoma statutes provide the rules for scientific or medical research facilities that use animals obtained from animal shelters or dog pounds. Among the provisions are licensing procedures, inspection requirements, municipal ordinance requirements relating to duration that animals must first be impounded, and a provision specifying that anyone who fails to undertake the duties required by the act is subject to a misdemeanor. Notably, a municipality must provide that an owner of an animal who voluntarily delivers it to a public pound has the right to specify that it not be used for scientific research; it shall be the duty of the pound superintendent to tag such animal properly and to make certain that such animal is not delivered to an institution for scientific purposes. However, institution is immune from liability resulting from an improper delivery to such an institution. | Statute |