Results
| Title | Citation | Alternate Citation | Agency Citation | Summary | Type |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Texas Attorney General Opinion No. JC-0048 | Tex. Atty. Gen. Op. JC-0048 |
Texas Attorney General Opinion regarding the issue of whether city ordinances are preempted by statutes that govern the treatment of animals. Specifically, the opinion discusses pigeon shoots. The opinion emphasizes that organized pigeon shoots are prohibited under Texas cruelty laws but that present wildlife laws allow the killing of feral pigeons. |
Case | ||
| Northern Ireland - Wildlife - Wildlife and Natural Environment Act (Northern Ireland) 2011 | 2011 Chapter 15 | This Act provides various protections to certain wild animals, and prohibits facilitating, attending or participating in hare coursing events. | Statute | ||
| AL - Importation, wildlife - 220-2-.26. Restrictions On Possession, Sale, Importation | AL ADC 220-2-.26 | AL ADC 220-2-.26 | This Alabama regulation provides that no person, firm, corporation, partnership, or association shall possess, sell, offer for sale, import, or bring into the state any of the listed species including piranha, mongoose, non-native coyote, fox, black bear, and others. It is also unlawful for any person to have in possession any live, protected wild bird or wild animal or live embryo, eggs, or sperm of these protected wild birds or animals. | Administrative | |
| Perkins v. Hattery | 155 N.E.2d 73 (Ohio App. 1958) | 106 Ohio App. 361 |
This Ohio case examined the propriety of a county dog warden killing a dog that had killed a sheep nine hours before such seizure. The Court of Appeals held that dog warden was not authorized to destroy or otherwise dispose of a duly licensed dog found and seized by such warden upon the premises of its owner following a complaint made to the warden by the owner of sheep that the dog had killed certain of his sheep approximately nine hours before such seizure. |
Case | |
| WY - Impound - § 33-30-215. Disposition of unclaimed animals in custody of veterinarians; | W. S. 1977 § 33-30-215 | WY ST § 33-30-215 | This Wyoming statute states that any animal placed in the custody of a licensed veterinarian for treatment, boarding, or other care, which is then unclaimed by its owner for a period of more than ten days after written notice is given to the owner at his or her last known address, shall be deemed to be abandoned. It may then be turned over to the nearest humane society or dog pound in the area where it may be disposed of as the shelter sees fit. | Statute | |
| SC - Hunting, Internet - § 50-11-95. Computer-assisted remote hunting and remote hunting | Code 1976 § 50-11-95 | SD ST § 50-11-95 | This statute makes it illegal to establish or operate computer-assisted remote hunting facilities in South Carolina. It is also illegal to engage in computer-assisted remote hunting if either the animal hunted, or any device, equipment, or software to remotely control the firearm is located in this State. A person who violates this section is guilty of a misdemeanor and may be fined at least $5,000 and/or imprisoned for up to one year. | Statute | |
| Earl v. Piowaty | 42 A.D.3d 865 (N.Y.A.D. 3 Dept.) | 2007 N.Y. Slip Op. 06212, 2007 WL 2127342 (N.Y.A.D. 3 Dept.), 839 N.Y.S.2d 861 | Plaintiffs' son was seriously injured when he was bitten in the face by a dog that belonged to defendant Susan Piowaty. Plaintiffs brought action on behalf of their son against Piowaty and the animal shelter from which Piowaty had adopted the dog two weeks prior to the incident, alleging that they had constructive notice of the dog's vicious propensities because of a minor incident earlier that week. However, this court agreed with the denial of plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment because there remains a triable issue as to the defendants' notice of the dog's vicious propensities at the time of the son's injury. | Case | |
| State v. DeMarco | 5 A.3d 527 (Conn.App., 2010) | 2010 WL 3860400 (Conn.App.); 124 Conn.App. 438 (2010) |
Defendant appeals his conviction of two counts of cruelty to animals—specifically, cruelty to several dogs found within his home. Evidence supporting the conviction came from a warrantless entry into defendant's home after police found it necessary to do a "welfare check" based on an overflowing mailbox, 10-day notices on the door, and a "horrible odor" emanating from the home. In reversing the convictions, the appellate court determined that the facts did not suggest that defendant or the dogs were in immediate danger supporting the emergency exception to the warrant requirement of the Fourth Amendment. |
Case | |
| MD - Immunity - § 5-614. Veterinary aid, care or assistance | MD Code, Courts and Judicial Proceedings, § 5-614 | MD CTS & JUD PRO § 5-614 | This law gives immunity to certain licensed professionals including veterinarians, medical care licensees, first responders, and certain local government employees for providing veterinary aid, care, or assistance (without a charging a fee) to animals at the scene of an emergency or in transit to a veterinary facility. The listed persons under the statute are not civilly liable for any act or omission in giving any veterinary aid, care, or assistance to an animal where the owner or custodian of the animal is not available to grant permission. | Statute | |
| Lockett v. Hill | 51 P.3d 5 (Or.App.,2002) | 182 Or.App. 377 (Or.App.,2002) |
In this Oregon case, plaintiff sued defendant after defendant's pit bulls mauled plaintiff's cat to death while they were running loose on plaintiff's property. The trial court found that defendant was negligent and awarded plaintiffs $1,000 in compensatory damages but denied plaintiffs' claims for negligent infliction of emotional distress and loss of companionship. Plaintiff sought appeal of the trial court's denial of damages for negligent infliction of emotional distress (NIED) and loss of companionship. The appellate court affirmed, holding that the cat owner was not entitled to recover damages for emotional distress. |
Case |