Results

Displaying 91 - 100 of 6638
Title Citation Alternate Citation Agency Citation Summary Type
Horton v. State Horton v. State, 27 So. 468 (Ala. 1900).

The defendant was charged under the Alabama cruelty to animal statute killing a dog.  The trial court found the defendant guilty of cruelly killing the dog.  The defendant appealed the descision to the Supreme Court for the determination if the killing of the dog with a rifle was cruel.  The Supreme Court found that the killing of a dog without the showing of cruelty to the animal was not a punishable offence under the cruelty to animal statute.  The Supreme Court reversed the lower court's descision and remanded it.

Case
England and Wales - Dogs - The Dangerous Dogs Exemption Schemes (England and Wales) Order 2015 2015 No. 138 An order providing exemptions from the immediate destruction of a dangerous dog, by way of a Contingent Destruction Order. Following a conviction under the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991, the Court must either order the immediate destruction of the dog, or the contingent destruction of a dog if satisfied that the dog is not a danger to public safety. Contains conditions that must be met in relation to the dog, and requirements that the person in charge of the dog must comply with. Statute
CA - Elephant Training - § 2128. Elephants; prohibited practices; penalties West's Ann. Cal. Fish & G. Code § 2128 CA FISH & G § 2128 This statute (operative on January 1, 2018) prohibits a person who houses, possesses, manages, or is in direct contact with an elephant from using a billhook, ankus, baseball bat, axe handle, pitchfork, and other devices that inflict pain for the purpose of training or controlling the elephant. Any person caught in violation of this statute will be subject to civil penalty and a suspension or revocation of his or her license to lawfully possess the animal. Statute
SD - Bite - Chapter 40-34. Dog Licenses and Regulation (Vicious Dog Provisions) S D C L § 40-34-13 to 16 SD ST § 40-34-13 to 16 This South Dakota statute provides that a vicious dog, defined as any dog which, when unprovoked, in a vicious manner approaches in apparent attitude of attack, or bites, or otherwise attacks a human being including a mailman, meter reader, serviceman, etc. who is on private property by reason of permission of the owner, is a public nuisance. However, no dog may be declared vicious if an injury or damage is sustained to any person who was committing a willful trespass or other tort upon premises occupied by the owner or keeper of the dog, or who was teasing, tormenting, abusing or assaulting the dog or was committing or attempting to commit a crime. Statute
NH - Assistance Animals - Assistance Animal/Guide Dog Laws N.H. Rev. Stat. § 5:15-b; § 21-P:37-a; 167-D:1 - 10; 265:41-a; § 376-A:15 NH ST § 5:15-b; § 21-P:37-a; 167-D:1 - 10; 265:41-a; § 376-A:15 The following statutes comprise the state's relevant assistance animal and guide dog laws. Statute
HI - Wildlife - Chapter 124. Indigenous Wildlife, Endangered and Threatened Wildlife, and Introduced Wild Birds Haw. Admin. Rules (HAR) § 13-124-1 to § 13-124-13 HI ADC § 13-124-1 to § 13-124-13 The purpose of this chapter is to conserve, manage, protect, and enhance indigenous wildlife; and manage introduced wild birds. Administrative
Lessman v. Rhodes 721 N.E.2d 178(1999)

Plaintiff, a participant in a horse show, was injured when a stallion bucked and kicked him; he sued the show’s sponsor, and the stallion’s rider and owner alleging negligent and willful and wanton misconduct, by failing to conduct background checks into the horses and by failing to separate the stallions participating in the show, inter alia .   The Equine Activity Liability Act, which was established to shield those persons who participate in equine activities from liability, provides an exception to the general rule by permitting liability for equine activity sponsors that commit “an act or omission that constitutes willful or wanton disregard for the safety of the participant, and that act or omission caused the injury.”   In this case, the plaintiff failed to provide evidence that showed that the defendants behaved in a reckless or intentional manner, therefore the summary judgment in favor of the defendant entered by the trial court was founded to be proper.

Case
Dodge v. Durdin 187 S.W.3d 523 (Tex. App.-Hous. (1 Dist.), 2005) 2005 WL 3214618 (Tex. App.-Hous. (1 Dist.))

 Employee brought a negligence action against employer for injuries suffered when administering medicine to an untamed horse.  District Court granted summary judgment stating that the plaintiff was considered a "participant" under the Equine Act.  Plaintiff appealed.  Court of Appeals reversed and remanded the case stating that the Equine Act did not apply because the Act covered consumers, not employees. 

Case
NV - Lien - 108.540. Lien upon animals; priority; demand for payment; foreclosure; penalty for taking or driving away animal N.R.S. 108.540 Any person furnishing feed, pasture or otherwise boarding any animal(s), at the request or with the consent of the owner, has a lien upon the animal(s), and may retain possession thereof until the sum due for the feed, pasture or board has been paid. Before foreclosing the lien by sale, the person furnishing the feed, pasture or board shall mail a registered or certified letter to the owner of the animal(s), at the owner's last known address, demanding payment. Any person who takes and drives away any such animal(s), while in the possession of the person feeding, pasturing or boarding them, without the consent of that person, and without first having paid all reasonable charges due thereon, is guilty of a misdemeanor. Statute
PA - Disaster - State Emergency Managment Plan Emergency Support Function #11 - Agriculture and Natural Resources Annex (2019) The Pennsylvania Emergency Management Agency (PEMA) is the agency in charge of emergency response in the state. The issue of animals in disaster are dealt with in Emergency Support Function #11 - Agriculture and Natural Resources Annex (2021). Administrative

Pages