Results
| Title | Citation | Alternate Citation | Agency Citation | Summary | Type |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Andrews v. City of West Branch Iowa | 454 F.3d 914 (8th Cir., 2006) |
Appellants filed a suit against defendant, City of West Branch, Iowa and former police chief Dan Knight, seeking damages and relief under Section 1983. The dog was killed by Knight in the owners' fenced backyard in view of one of the plaintiffs. The district court's grant of summary judgment for the officer was reversed and the case was remanded for a jury trial. |
Case | ||
| Wales - Fur, mink - The Mink Keeping (Prohibition) (Wales) Order 2012 | 2012 No. (W. ) | An Order imposing an absolute prohibition upon the keeping of mink in Wales. | Statute | ||
| AK - Ordinances - § 03.55.070. Power of village council to control dogs | AS § 03.55.070 | AK ST § 03.55.070 | This Alaska statute enables a village council the power to destroy loose dogs in the village and otherwise control dogs to the extent authorized first class cities. The council may impose and enforce the provisions of a dog control ordinance in the total area within 20 miles of the village. | Statute | |
| Pine v. State | 889 S.W.2d 625 (Tex. App. 1994). |
Mens rea in cruelty conviction may be inferred from circumstances. With regard to warrantless seizure, the Fourth Amendment does not prohibit seizure when there is a need to act immediately to protect and preserve life (i.e. "emergency doctrine"). |
Case | ||
| NJ - Disaster - App. A:9-43.15. Emergency evacuation; boarding of public transportation or public transportation service with domestic companion animal | N.J.S.A. App. A:9-43.15 | NJ ST App. A:9-43.15 | This New Jersey law states that in the event that a state of emergency has been declared and an evacuation of any region of the State is in progress, the owner of a domestic companion animal shall be permitted to board any public transportation or public transportation service with the domestic companion animal so long as that animal is under the owner's control by use of a leash or tether, or is properly confined in an appropriate container or by other suitable means, provided that such boarding is authorized by and consistent with the provisions of the State Emergency Operations Plan. Additionally, all passengers with service animals shall be given priority seating on all means of transportation. | Statute | |
| Barrios v. Safeway Ins. Co. | 97 So.3d 1019 (La.App. 4 Cir.,2012) | 2012 WL 1000864 (La.App. 4 Cir.,2012) |
Louisiana dog owners sued motorist for mental anguish and property damage after their dog was hit and killed by defendant's car. The lower court awarded damages to each of the dog owners in the total amount of $10,000. The Court upheld that the damages award of $10,000 because the dog was killed as a result of motorist's negligence, the owners were nearby and immediately arrived at scene to find their beloved dog dead, the dog was extremely valuable to owners, who had a close family-like relationship with dog for approximately 12 years, and the loss caused the owners to suffer psychic trauma. |
Case | |
| U.S. v. Apollo Energies, Inc. | 611 F.3d 679 (C.A.10 (Kan.), 2010) | 2010 WL 2600502 (C.A.10 (Kan.)) |
Appellants, Apollo Energies, Inc. and Dale Walker, were charged with violating the Migratory Bird Treaty Act after an agent with the USFWS discovered dead migratory birds lodged in each appellant's "heater-treater," a piece of equipment used in the course of appellants' Kansas oil drilling businesses, on several occasions. At trial, both Apollo and Walker were convicted of misdemeanor violations for "taking" or "possessing" migratory birds. On appeal, Apollo and Walker contested that (1) the MBTA is not a strict liability crime or, (2) if it is a strict liability crime, the MBTA is unconstitutional as applied to their conduct. Bound by a previous holding that found misdemeanor violations of the MBTA are strict liability crimes, the court concluded that the MBTA includes no mens rea requirement. As to Appellants' second contention challenging the constitutionality of the Act, the court concluded that while the Act is not unconstitutionally vague, "the MBTA requires a defendant to proximately cause the statute's violation for the statute to pass constitutional muster. |
Case | |
| NV- Rehabilitation, wildlife - Chapter 504. Wildlife Management and Propagation. | NV ADC 504.492 - 498 | NAC 504.490 - 498 | These Nevada regulations are about permits to rehabilitate wildlife. These regulations reveal where an application for a wildlife rehabilitation permit can be obtained, what must be included on the application, where to return the application, the required documents that must also be submitted with the application, the expiration of the permit, and the roles and the responsibilities of the permit holder. Additionally, the following regulations also provide information about euthanizing wildlife that is not listed as endangered or threatened species, as well as how to euthanize a species that is listed as endangered or threatened. | Administrative | |
| NY - Lien upon strays - § 310. Lien upon strays | McKinney's Town Law § 310 | NY TOWN § 310 | If any person finds any livestock on their enclosed land, or finds livestock on their land doing damage, and the livestock did not come from adjoining lands because of the refusal or neglect to erect a division fence required by law, such person may have a lien over all other liens on such livestock. The lien shall last for as long as such person retains possession of the livestock, and as long as the damage remains to his land, until the damages, charges, fees, and costs are paid for keeping the livestock. | Statute | |
| Canada - Yukon Statutes. Animal Protection Act | R.S.Y. 2002, c. 6, s. 1 - 14 | This set of laws comprises the Yukon, Canada Animal Protection Act. The Act provides that no person shall cause or allow an animal to be in distress. Any person who contravenes this Act is guilty of an offence and liable on summary conviction to a fine of not more than $500 and, in default of payment, to imprisonment up to six months, or to both fine and imprisonment. A judge may also prohibit a person convicted of an offence under the Act from owning an animal or from having charge of an animal for any specified time period. The Act also outlines the power of peace officers to seize animals in distress as well as those powers of humane societies to provide care for such animals. | Statute |