Results
| Title | Citation | Alternate Citation | Agency Citation | Summary | Type |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Kovar v. City of Cleveland | 102 N.E.2d 472 (Ohio App. 1951) | 60 Ohio Law Abs. 579 (1951) |
This case involved a petition by LaVeda Kovar, et al against the City of Cleveland to obtain an order to restrain the City from disposing of dogs impounded by the City Dog Warden by giving or selling them to hospitals or laboratories for experimental and research purposes. The Court of Appeals held that the City of Cleveland, both by its constitutional right of home rule and by powers conferred on municipal corporations by statute, had the police power right to provide that no dog should be permitted to run at large unless muzzled, and any dog found at large and unmuzzled would be impounded. Further, by carrying out the mandate of the city ordinance by disposing of these impounded dogs was simply the performance of a ministerial or administrative duty properly delegated to Director of Public Safety. |
Case | |
| US - Wolf - Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Reinstatement of Protections for the Gray Wolf in the Western Great L | 2009 WL 2947315 (F.R.) | Docket No. FWSR3ES20090063; 9222011130000; C6 |
We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), are issuing this final rule to comply with a court order that has the effect of reinstating the regulatory protections under the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (ESA), for the gray wolf (Canis lupus) in the western Great Lakes. This rule corrects the gray wolf listing in our regulations which will reinstate the listing of gray wolves in all of Wisconsin and Michigan, the eastern half of North Dakota and South Dakota, the northern half of Iowa, the northern portions of Illinois and Indiana, and the northwestern portion of Ohio as endangered, and reinstate the listing of wolves in Minnesota as threatened. This rule also reinstates the former designated critical habitat for gray wolves in Minnesota and Michigan and special regulations for gray wolves in Minnesota. |
Administrative | |
| WI - Importation - Wildlife, Chapter 10. Animal Diseases and Movement. | Wis. Adm. Code s ATCP 10.01 - 10.09; 10.80 - 10.85 | WI ADC s ATCP 10.01 - 10.09; 10.80 - 10.87 | In this set of Wisconsin regulations, "wild animal" does not include a domestic animal identified in s. ATCP 10.02 (livestock, poultry, and other domestic animals). The majority of the regulations here concern disease detection, inoculation, and prevention in domestic herds. However, a person who imports an animal must comply with importing requirements including obtaining a permit under ATCP 10.07. Importation of specific species (dog, cats, exotic ruminants, camelids, elephants, etc.) are covered in 10.80 - 10.86. | Administrative | |
| VA - Fur - § 3.2-6570. Cruelty to animals; penalty (dog/cat fur prohibition) | Va. Code Ann. § 3.2-6570 | VA ST § 3.2-6570 | In Virginia, it is unlawful for any person to kill a domestic dog or cat for the purpose of obtaining the hide, fur or pelt of the dog or cat (subsection E). A violation of this subsection is a Class 1 misdemeanor. A second or subsequent violation of this subsection is a Class 6 felony. | Statute | |
| OK - Endangered Species - Part 4. Protected Game | 29 Okl. St. Ann. 5-402, 412, 412.1; 29 Okl. St. Ann. § 2-109, 135 | OK ST T. 29 § 5-402, 412, 412.1; OK ST T. 29 § 2-109, 135 | Under Oklahoma law, no person may possess, hunt, chase, harass, capture, shoot at, wound or kill, take or attempt to take, trap or attempt to trap any endangered or threatened species or subspecies without specific written permission of the Director. Violation incurs a $100 - 1,000 penalty with up to 30 days in jail. | Statute | |
| McNeely v. U.S. | 874 A.2d 371 (D.C. App. 2005) | Defendant McNeely was convicted in a jury trial in the Superior Court of violating the Pit Bull and Rottweiler Dangerous Dog Designation Emergency Amendment Act. On appeal, t he Court of Appeals, held that the Act did not deprive defendant of fair warning of the proscribed conduct, as the defendant here was required to know that he owned pit bulls in order to be convicted under the Act; and the prosecutor's improper comment was rendered harmless by the trial court's curative instructions. | Case | ||
| IN RE MARSHALL RESEARCH ANIMALS, INC. | 39 Agric. Dec. 359 (1980) | 1980 WL 21132 (U.S.D.A.) |
In this order, the court held that Respondent shall cease and desist from transporting live animals in primary enclosures which are not sufficiently large to insure that each animal contained therein has sufficient space to turn about freely in a standing position using normal body movement, to stand and sit erect, and to lie in a natural position, which spatial requirements are contained in the regulations issued pursuant to the Act. (9 CFR 3.12(c)). |
Case | |
| WI - Somerset - Breed - Sec. 7-1-9. Wild, exotic and dangerous animals; pit bull dogs. | SOMERSET, WI., CODE OF ORDINANCES § 7-1-9 (2000) |
It is unlawful to keep, harbor, own or possess any pit bull dog in Somerset Wisconsin, with exceptions for dogs registered prior to the effective date of the pit bull ban. Such dogs are subject to certain requirements, such as proper confinement or the use of a leash and muzzle, posting “Beware of Dog” signs, and keeping $50,000 liability insurance. Puppies born to such dogs must be removed from the city after 6 weeks. |
Local Ordinance | ||
| Song v Coddington | (2003) 59 NSWLR 180 | [2003] NSWSC 1196 |
The appellant was charged and convicted of being a person in charge and authorising the carriage of a number of goats in cages which did not allow those goats to stand upright. The appellant was a veterinary doctor employed by the Australian Quarantine Inspection Service and authorised under the Export Control (Animals) Orders 1987 to certify animals for export. On appeal, it was determined that for the purposes of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (General) Regulation 1996, the appellant was not a person in charge of the goats. |
Case | |
| Argentina - Farm animals - Ley 3.959, 1900 | LEY 3.959 | This is the law of the Police for Animal Health. The purpose of this law is to set the parameters to ensure the protection of livestock against contagious exotic diseases. This law regulates topics such as importation and exportation of livestock, prohibiting the importation or exportation of animals infected with contagious diseases or suspected of being infected. | Statute |