Results
| Title | Citation | Alternate Citation | Agency Citation | Summary | Type |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| OR - Cruelty - Arrest warrants in cruelty matters (Chapter 133) | O. R. S. § 133.375 - 381 | OR ST § 133.375 - 381 | This set of Oregon laws relates to the arrest of those found violating the state's cruelty laws. Under the section, any person violating ORS 167.315 to 167.333, 167.340, 167.355, 167.365 or 167.428 may be arrested and held without warrant, in the same manner as in the case of persons found breaking the peace. Further, any peace officer who cares or provides for an animal pursuant to this section and any person into whose care an animal is delivered by a peace officer acting under this section shall be immune from civil or criminal liability based upon an allegation that such care was negligently provided. | Statute | |
| US - Endangered Species - Subpart C. Endangered Wildlife | 69 FR 4557 | 50 CFR 17.21 to .23 | These Endangered Species Act regulations describe illegal actions with respect to endangered wildlife, including prohibited taking, transporting, and selling among other things. They also outline exceptions to the taking prohibition including those related to scientific purposes, enhancement of a species propagation, and economic hardship permits. | Administrative | |
| OH - Cruelty - Consolidated Cruelty Statutes | R.C. § 959.01 - 959.99 | OH ST § 959.01 - 959.99 | These statutes comprise Ohio's anti-animal cruelty and animal fighting provisions. Included in the prohibited acts are abandoning domestic animals, willfully injuring or poisoning domestic or agricultural animals, drugging animals in competition, and "cruel" acts to both wild and domestic animals as defined by statute. The section also prohibits dogfighting and cockfighting. | Statute | |
| MI - Cruelty - Consolidated Cruelty Statutes (MCL 750.49 - 70) | M. C. L. A. 750.49 - 70a; M.C.L.A. 750.158 | MI ST 750.49 - 70a; 750.158 | The Michigan Legislature has designed three primary provisions related to cruelty to animals: intentional infliction of pain and suffering, duty to provide care, and anti-animal fighting. The intentional infliction of pain and suffering provision carries the most severe penalties for animal cruelty and a violation is automatically a felony. A violation of the duty to provide care provision is initially a misdemeanor, which becomes a felony for a second or subsequent violation. A violation of the anti-animal fighting provision is either a misdemeanor or a felony, depending on the severity of conduct related to fighting. The provision does not apply to the lawful killing of livestock or customary animal husbandry of livestock, or lawful fishing, hunting, trapping, wildlife control, pest or rodent control, and animal research. | Statute | |
| DOYLE v DEPUTY SHERIFF'S | 758 N.Y.S.2d 791 (N.Y.Sup. 2003) | 195 Misc.2d 358, 2003 N.Y. Slip Op. 23494 (N.Y.Sup. 2003) |
In this New York case, a minor child was injured when he was kicked by defendant's horse while defendant was in the process of the setting up a petting zoo at a picnic. The court was posed with the question of whether limited circumstances exist to support a negligence claim where a person is injured by a domestic animal and there is no proof of the animal's vicious propensities (the pony in this case never kicked anyone or showed any vicious propensities). The court answered the question in the affirmative. Here, defendant is subject to the enhanced duty of horse owners to young children. There were triable issues of fact as to defendant's negligence in the manner in which the horses were unloaded while in the presence of children that precluded summary judgment for defendant.
|
Case | |
| HI - Facility dog - [§ 621-30]. Use of a facility dog | H R S § 621-30 | HI ST § 621-30 | This Hawaii law enacted in 2016 states that a court may permit the use of a facility dog in a judicial proceeding involving the testimony of a vulnerable witness (as defined) if the court determines that there is a compelling necessity for the use of a facility dog to facilitate the testimony of the vulnerable witness. Prior to use, the moving party must establish that the dog is credentialed; the dog is adequately insured; and that there is a relationship between the witness and the facility dog. | Statute | |
| Baker v. McIntosh | 132 S.W.3d 230 (Ky. 2004) |
Visitor to horse farm brought action for negligence when he was injured by owners colt. Held: the owner had no duty to prevent the colt from falling against the trailer door, nor did he have a duty to warn the visitor of the potential for such an accident to occur. |
Case | ||
| Protect Our Communities Foundation v. Jewell | 825 F.3d 571 (9th Cir. 2016) | 2016 WL 3165630 (9th Cir. June 7, 2016) | In this case, various environmental groups filed suit against the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) and the Department of the Interior, arguing that the BLM should not have granted right-of-way on federal lands to a proposed energy project because the project would violate the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) and the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act. The plaintiffs also argued that the BLM’s environmental impact statement (EIS) for the project was not sufficient according to the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). Ultimately, the court held in favor of the defendants and found that the EIS was sufficient under the NEPA and that by granting the right-of-way, BLM was not violation the MBTA or the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act. The court found that the EIS was sufficient under the NEPA because it included all the necessary information and was broad enough as to not force the BLM into automatically accepting the proposal. Additionally, the court held that the BLM was not in violation of the MBTA or the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act because the BLM was acting in a “purely regulatory capacity” and the BLM’s action could directly or proximately cause a violation under the MBTA or the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act. | Case | |
| US - Chimpanzees - Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; 90-Day Finding on a Petition To List All Chimpanzees (Pan trog | 2011 WL 3840975 (F.R.) | Docket No. FWS-R9-ES-2010-0086; MO 92210-1111F113 B6 |
We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, announce a 90-day finding on a petition to list all chimpanzees (Pan troglodytes) as endangered under the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (Act). Based on our review, we find that the petition presents substantial scientific or commercial information indicating that listing all chimpanzees as endangered may be warranted. Therefore, with the publication of this notice, we are initiating a review of the status of the species to determine if listing the entire species as endangered is warranted. To ensure that this status review is comprehensive, we are requesting scientific and commercial data and other information regarding this species. Based on the status review, we will issue a 12-month finding on the petition, which will address whether the petitioned action is warranted, as provided in section 4(b)(3)(B) of the Act. |
Administrative | |
| NE - Livestock - Article 23. Domesticated Cervine Animal Act | Neb. Rev. St. § 54-2301 to 54- 2324 | NE ST § 54-2301 to 54- 2324 | This set of laws comprises Nebraska's Domesticated Cervine Animal Act. Under the act, it is unlawful for any person to own, possess, buy, sell, or barter any domesticated cervine animal in this state unless such animal is individually identified and kept at a premises for which a domesticated cervine animal facility permit has been issued by the department. A municipal, state, or federal zoo, park, refuge, or wildlife area, a bona fide circus or animal exhibit, or any private, nonprofit zoological society is not required to obtain a permit in order to own, possess, buy, sell, or barter a domesticated cervine animal, but such facilities are still governed by the provisions of the act regarding the testing, control, and eradication of cervidae diseases including chronic wasting disease. | Statute |