Results
| Title | Citation | Alternate Citation | Summary | Type |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| AK - Hunting - § 16.05.797. Computer-assisted remote hunting prohibited | AS § 16.05.797 | AK ST § 16.05.797 | This law makes it a class A misdemeanor to engage in computer-assisted remote hunting or or provide or operate a facility for computer-assisted remote hunting in Alaska. | Statute |
| MARILYN DANTON v. ST. FRANCIS 24 HOUR ANIMAL HOSPITAL, P.C. a Washington professional services corporation (UBI 602-029-072); an | This Washington case involves plaintiff's suit against defendant animal hospital for the escape of her cat while the cat was being boarded at the hospital. Plaintiff sued for simple negligence with a presumption of res ipsa loquitur and breach of bailment contract. With regard to damages, plaintiff pleads intrinsic value of "Moochie," which includes as component the emotional distress suffered by plaintiff. Following a six-person jury trial, the jury returned a verdict in favor of plaintiff on her negligence and breach of contract claims in a total amount of $2,500.00 | Pleading | ||
| Missouri v. Holland | 40 S.Ct. 382 (1920) | 252 U.S. 416 (1920) |
This was a bill in equity brought by the State of Missouri to prevent a game warden of the United States from attempting to enforce the Migratory Bird Treaty Act of July 3, 1918, c. 128, 40 Stat. 755, and the regulations made by the Secretary of Agriculture in pursuance of the same. The ground of the bill is that the statute is an unconstitutional interference with the rights reserved to the States by the Tenth Amendment. While the court recognized the states' province to act in traditional matters of fish and game, the migratory nature of wild birds makes them the proper subject of treaty. As noted by the Court, "[t]he subject matter is only transitorily within the State and has no permanent habitat therein." The Court found the treaty was a proper exercise of constitutional authority where a national interest was implicated (i.e., "the protectors of our forests and our crops") and could only be protected by national action in concert with another power. |
Case |
| HAGEN v. LAURSEN | 263 P.2d 489 (Cal.App. 3 Dist. 1953) | 121 Cal.App.2d 379 (Cal.App. 3 Dist. 1953) |
Two Irish setters knocked down a neighbor while playing outside. Previously no one had seen them run into anyone while playing. They were not shown to have been more boisterous than dogs usually are. There was no evidence that these dogs were vicious. The court found that there was no foreseeable risk of harm and therefore no duty upon which to base a claim of negligence. |
Case |
| IN - Cattle Slaughter - THE ANDHRA PRADESH PROHIBITION OF COW SLAUGHTER AND ANIMAL PRESERVATION ACT, 1977 | 11 of 1977 | The legislation, specific to the South Indian state of Andhra Pradesh, prohibits the slaughter of cows and the calves of female buffaloes. Other animals may not be slaughtered without a certificate from a competent authority. Slaughter may be carried out only in specified places. Offences under the Act are punishable with imprisonment or fines. The law protects acts done in good faith under this Act or its rules. The Act provides for the establishment of institutions taking care of cows. | Statute | |
| Mangy Curs and Stoned Horses: Animal control in the District of Columbia from the beginnings to about 1940 |
|
Policy | ||
| Mahan v. State | 51 P.3d 962, 963 (Alaska Ct. App. 2002) | 2002 Alas. App. LEXIS 148 | Mahan had over 130 animals on her property. Alaska Equine Rescue went to check on the condition of the animals at the request of her family members. The animals were in poor health and were removed by Alaska State Troopers and the Rescue. The animals were then placed in foster homes. The defendant's attorney requested a writ of assistance to require law enforcement to assist and force the foster families to answer a questionnaire. The appellate court held that the families were under no legal obligation to answer the questionnaire unless the court were to issue a deposition order and the families were to be properly subpoenaed. The district court's denial of the writ was upheld. Mahan's attorney also asked for a change of venue due to the publicity the case garnered. The court held the defendant was not entitled to a change of venue when 15 jurors had been excused and there was no reason to doubt the impartiality of the jurors who were left after the selection process. There was no indication that the jurors were unable to judge the case fairly. Mahan's attorney also filed a motion to suppress a majority of the evidence, claiming that the Rescue and law enforcement unlawfully entered the property. The judge stated he would rule on the motion if it was appropriate to do so. The judge never ruled on the motion. To preserve an issue for appeal, the appellant must obtain an adverse ruling, thus it constituted a waiver of the claim. Mahan was also prohibited from owning more than one animal. She offered no reason why this condition of probation was an abuse of the judge's discretion, therefore it was a waiver of this claim. Lastly, although the Rescue received donations from the public to help care for the animals, that did not entitle Mahan to an offset. Restitution is meant to make the victims whole again and also to make the defendant pay for the expense caused by their criminal conduct. | Case |
| VT - Lost dog - Article 2. Killing Unlicensed Dogs; Subchapter 5. Control of Rabies | 20 V.S.A. § 3621 - 3626; 20 V.S.A. § 3806 - 3809 | VT ST T. 20 § 3621 - 3626; VT ST T. 20 § 3806 - 3809 | These Vermont statute provide the law for seizure, confinement of, and destruction of dogs and domestic wolf-hybrids. It also includes a warrant form necessary for local authorities to seize and impound an offending dog or wolf-hybrid. | Statute |
| Canada - Dog, dangerous - Nova Scotia Municipal Government Act | S.N.S. 1998, c. 18, s. 174 - 179 | Certain sections (ss.175-179) of this Nova Scotia statute deal with dog ownership, and the consequences for failing to control a dog, or owning one who causes harm to people or property. | Statute | |
| NV - Washoe County - Chapter 55: Animals and Fowl (Sections 55.110; 55.390 - 55.450) | The Washoe County Code, Chapter 55: Animals and Fowl, §§ 55.110, 55.390 - 55.450 (2012) |
These Washoe County, Nevada ordinances prohibit any person from keeping an animal unless the area in which the animal lives is kept clean and free of offensive odors and animal wastes. Additionally, these ordinances also require that any person who wishes to keep more than 3 adult dogs or 7 adult cats obtain a permit; permit requirement, exemption, and revocation or suspension provisions are also included, as are the penalties for violating these provisions. |
Local Ordinance |
