Results
| Title | Citation | Alternate Citation | Agency Citation | Summary | Type |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Claddie Savage v. Prator | 886 So.2d 523 (La.App. 2 Cir. 2004) | 2004 WL 2240592 (La.App. 2 Cir.) |
A Parish Sheriff informed game clubs the parish ordinance against cockfighting would be enforced, despite the fact that cockfighting tournaments had been held at the game clubs since 1991. The game clubs filed for and received a preliminary injunction against enforcement of the parish ordinance. The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court decision. Reversed by Savage v. Prator , 921 So.2d 51 (La., 2006). |
Case | |
| US - Endangered Species - Subpart B. § 17.11 Endangered and threatened wildlife. | 50 C.F.R. § 17.11 | The list in this section contains the names of all species of wildlife which have been determined by the Services to be Endangered or Threatened. It also contains the names of species of wildlife treated as Endangered or Threatened because they are sufficiently similar in appearance to Endangered or Threatened species. | Administrative | ||
| OK - Disaster - Care and Disposition of Disaster Animals Act | 4 Okl. St. Ann. § 701 - 707 | These statutes compose the Care and Disposition of Disaster Animals Act of Oklahoma. The Act describes where animals who are rescued from a disaster area should be held, how long the animals should be held for their owners, and also restricts disaster animals from being removed from the state. The statute also describes the penalties for knowingly removing disaster animals from the state including a civil fine of up to One Thousand Dollars ($1,000.00) per offense. | Statute | ||
| ME - Hunting, Internet - § 12101. License to operate commercial shooting area | 12 M. R. S. A. § 12101 | Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 12, § 12101 | Subsection 1-C prohibits hunting via the Internet and the operation of Internet hunting services located within the state of Maine. A person who violates this section commits a Class E crime. | Statute | |
| LA - Cruelty - Consolidated Cruelty Statutes | LSA-R.S. 3:2361 - 2367; LSA-R.S. 14:102 - .29 | These Louisiana statutes comprise the state's anti-cruelty provisions. The term "cruel" is defined in the first section every act or failure to act whereby unjustifiable physical pain or suffering is caused or permitted. The crime of cruelty to animals is subdivided into simple cruelty or aggravated cruelty. Simple cruelty occurs when a person intentionally or with criminal negligence overdrives, overloads, drives when overloaded, or overworks, torments, cruelly beats, or unjustifiably injures, or, having charge, custody, or possession of any animal, either as owner or otherwise, unjustifiably fails to provide any living animal with proper food, proper drink, proper shelter, or proper veterinary care. | Statute | ||
| State v. Brown | 771 N.W.2d 267 (N.D.,2009) | 2009 WL 2506287 (N.D.), 2009 ND 150 |
In this North Dakota case, the defendant appeals from a criminal judgment finding she violated the Cass County Animal Control Ordinance after her neighbors reported her barking dogs. In her first appeal ground, Brown contended that the Ordinance constituted an unconstitutional delegation of power. The court disagreed, finding that Cass County adopted a home rule charter and thus had the power to create criminal penalties for violations of ordinances. Brown next argued that the legislature “has statutorily prohibited the county from attempting to regulate dogs as public nuisances.” Since the state has defined certain “dog activities” that constitute a public nuisance, the county is precluded from declaring any other dog-related activity a public nuisance according to defendant. The court found that this broad interpretation would preclude action by the county if the state has exercised any authority and would virtually eliminate the county's authority granted by home-rule authority. The court also rejected Brown’s argument that the Ordinance is unconstitutionally vague. The Ordinance provides that an animal that “barks ... in an excessive or continuous manner” is a public nuisance. The court held that its holding in Kilkenny, 2007 ND 44, ¶¶ 20-25, 729 N.W.2d 120, is controlling here, where the words excessive, continuous, or untimely have a common understanding and are not vague. |
Case | |
| Bal Harbour Village v. Welsh | 879 So.2d 1265 (Fl. 2004) | 879 So.2d 1265 (Fl. 2004) |
Defendant owned four dogs prior to the enactment of an ordinance prohibiting municipality residents from owning more than two dogs in one household. The municipality brought suit against Defendant for failing to comply with the ordinance. The trial court denied the municipalities prayer for permanent injunctive relief, but the Court of Appeals overruled the decision holding the ordinance could constitutionally be enforced under the police power to abate nuisance. |
Case | |
| CT - Cruelty, reporting - § 17a-100a. Reporting of neglected or cruelly treated animals. | C.G.S.A. § 17a-100a - § 17a-100c | Conn. Gen. Stat. Ann. § 17a-100a - § 17a-100c (West) | These Connecticut statutes require state employees who work with children and families to also report suspected animal harm, neglect, or cruelty. The statutes explain how the reporting should be completed and describes the implementation of training programs for employees to recognize animal abuse. The statutes also discuss the development of an annual report on actual or suspected instances of animal neglect or cruelty within the state. | Statute | |
| Robinson v. Pezzat | 83 F.Supp.3d 258 (D.D.C. 2015) | 2015 WL 1263143 | While executing a search warrant at the plaintiff’s home, a police officer shot and killed the plaintiff’s thirteen-year-old dog. Accounts differed as to whether the dog bit the officer before shooting or whether the bite was a result of the shooting. The plaintiff filed suit against the police officer and municipality and alleged, inter alia, violations of her constitutional rights, several common law torts, and intentional infliction of emotional distress. The court was not swayed by the plaintiff’s “uncorroborated version of events” and granted summary judgment in favor of the defendants. The court held that the plaintiff had not met her burden to defeat either the individual police officer’s or the municipality’s immunity. This case is under appeal as of September 15, 2015. | Case | |
| US - Eagle - Endangered and Threatened Species; Bald Eagle Reclassification; Final Rule | Federal Register: July 12, 1995 (Volume 60, Number 133) | RIN 1018-AC48 |
The Fish and Wildlife Service reclassifies under the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (Act), as amended, the bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus) from endangered to threatened in the lower 48 States. The bald eagle remains classified as threatened in Michigan, Minnesota, Wisconsin, Oregon, and Washington where it is currently listed as threatened. The special rule for threatened bald eagles is revised to include all lower 48 States. This action will not alter those conservation measures already in force to protect the species and its habitats. The bald eagle also occurs in Alaska and Canada, where it is not at risk and is not protected under the Act. Bald eagles of Mexico are not listed at this time due to a recently enacted moratorium on listing additional taxa as threatened or endangered. |
Administrative |