Results

Displaying 51 - 60 of 6637
Title Citation Alternate Citation Agency Citation Summary Type
HI - Endangered Species - Chapter 195D. Conservation of Aquatic Life, Wildlife, and Land Plants H R S § 195D-1 - 32 HI ST § 195D-1 to 32 Hawaii endangered species law prohibits any taking, transport or commerce in designated species. It further outlines conservation programs that mandate continued research on listed species. Broad arrest and search and seizure provisions are given to law enforcement officials to enforce these acts. Violation of the regulations result in a misdemeanor conviction with both criminal fines and administrative fines that graduate for subsequent convictions. Statute
Bailey v. Veitch 814 N.Y.S.2d 459 (N.Y.A.D. 4 Dept.,2006) 2006 N.Y. Slip Op. 03192

In this New York memorandum opinion, the Supreme Court, Appellate Division, held that fact issues remained as to whether injuries sustained by child were caused by dog, and whether defendants knew or should have known of dog's vicious propensities. At the time of the alleged bite, the four-year-old child was alone in a room with the dog and sustained a gaping laceration on her nose and multiple puncture wounds on her face. The court also determined there was an issue of fact as to whether the dog previously displayed vicious tendencies where the dog bit its owner's grandson on the hand two weeks prior to the instant incident.

Case
Smegal v. Gettys 48 So.3d 431 (La.App. 1 Cir., 2010) 2010 WL 4272594 (La.App. 1 Cir.)

Plaintiff Steven Smegal appeals a judgment that found him 50% at fault in a dog bite case. The incident occurred after the dog owned by Smegal's neighbor (Gettys) ran into the street and was hit by a school bus. Smegal approached the injured dog too closely and was bitten on his ankle. The Court of Appeal, First Circuit affirmed the lower court's finding. The court held that Smegal's actions did not constitute provocation where the dog's owners were also approaching the injured dog in an "equally provocative" manner. As to allocation of fault, the court found that while it was Gettys' failure to restrain the dog that was the ultimate cause of the accident, Smegal chose to approach the injured dog despite his training and knowledge as a police officer. Thus, this set of facts supported the trial court's allocation of comparative fault.

Case
A night monkey in a soiled cage looking out from plastic hideout Slideshow Images
FL - Rehabilitation, wildlife - 68A-9.006. Wildlife Rehabilitation Permit. 68 FL ADC 68A-9.006 Rule 68A-9.006, F.A.C. This Florida regulation sets forth the requirements to obtain a permit for wildlife rehabilitation. Administrative
State v. Silver 391 P.3d 962 (2017) 283 Or.App. 847 (2017)

In this case, the defendant was found guilty on multiple counts of animal abuse after failing to provide minimally adequate care for his herd of alpacas. The defendant was charged with a felony count (Count 1) and a misdemeanor count (Count 6) of first-degree animal abuse. On appeal, the defendant argued that the trial court erred by not merging the multiple guilty verdicts into a single conviction. The state agreed that the trial court did err in its decision not to merge the verdicts; however, the state argued that the mistake should not require resentencing. The defendant argued that the court should follow its previous decisions and order a remand for resentencing. Ultimately, the court remanded the case for resentencing under ORS 138.222(5)(b). The state argued that language of ORS 138.222(5)(b) should be interpreted not to include merger errors. The court disagreed with this argument and relied on its decision in previous cases that interpreted the language of the statute more broadly. Additionally, the court held that if the state’s disapproval of the ORS 138.222(5)(b) is something that should be dealt with by the legislature and not the court. 

Case
NY - Hunting, Internet - 11-1906 On-line shoots prohibited. McKinney's E. C. L. § 11-1906, McKinney's E. C. L. § 71-0923 N.Y. Envtl. Conserv. Law §§ 11-1906, 71-0923 This statute prohibits online shooting in the state of New York. Violation of the statute is punishable by a fine of not more than 2,500 dollars. Statute
LA - Leash - Chapter 18. Animals Running at Large LSA-R.S. 3:2771 This Louisiana law states that no person shall permit any dog in his or her possession to run at large on any unenclosed land, or trespass upon any enclosed or unenclosed lands of another. Statute
DE - Equine Activity Liability - § 8140. CHAPTER 81. PERSONAL ACTIONS. 10 Del.C. § 8140 DE ST TI 10 § 8140 This Delaware statute provides that an equine activity sponsor, an equine professional or any other person shall not be liable for an injury to or the death of a participant resulting from the inherent risks of equine activities. Liability is not limited, however, when the equine professional knowingly used faulty tack, failed to make reasonable and prudent efforts to determine the ability of the participant to engage in the activity, owns or otherwise is in lawful possession of the land upon which the participant sustained injuries because of a dangerous latent condition which was known, commits an act or omission that constitutes willful or wanton disregard for the safety of the participant, or intentionally injures the participant. Equine professionals and sponsors are also required to post warning signs alerting the participants to the limitation of liability by law. Statute
Bohan v. Ritzo 679 A.2d 597 (N.H.,1996) 141 N.H. 210 (N.H.,1996)

In this New Hampshire case, a bicyclist brought suit against a dog owner under the state's strict liability statute for injuries he sustained when he fell from his bike after the owners' dog ran toward him. The jury awarded him $190,000 at trial. On appeal, this court found that the bicyclist's allegations were sufficient to sustain the jury's finding even though there was no evidence that the dog actually bit the plaintiff or made any physical contact. The Court held that there is nothing in the plain language of RSA 466:19 that would limit the statute's application actual bites or other direct physical contact. Instead, the statute makes dog owners strictly liable to “[a]ny person to whom ... damage may be occasioned by a dog not owned or kept by him.” RSA 466:19.

 
Case

Pages