Results
Displaying 11 - 20 of 6639
| Title | Citation | Alternate Citation | Summary | Type |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Wales - Dogs - The Animal Welfare (Breeding of Dogs) (Wales) Regulations 2014 | 2014 No. 3266 (W. 333) | Regulations to license persons breeding dogs in Wales. | Statute | |
| SD - Exotic Pets - Chapter 40-3. State Animal Industry Board (captive wildlife provisions) | S D C L § 40-3-23 - 30; SDCL § 7-12-29 | SD ST § 40-3-23 - 30; § 7-12-29 | These South Dakota statutes establish the Animal Industry Board, which promulgate rules to allow nondomestic mammals that are safe to the public and to the free-roaming animals of the state to be imported or possessed. The Board regulates the breeding, raising, marketing, and transportation of any captive nondomestic mammals. The Board may also develop and implement programs to identify animals and premises involved to further animal health and food safety. | Statute |
| NH - Endangered - Chapter 212-A. Endangered Species Conservation Act | N.H. Rev. Stat. § 212-A:1 to 212-A:16 | NH ST § 212-A:1 to 212-A:16 | These New Hampshire statutes outline the Endangered Species Conservation Act. The definitions of the terms used in the Act are described especially with regard to what constitutes endangered and threatened species. Violation of the Act is accomplished by taking a protected species and incurs a misdemeanor penalty. | Statute |
| Nutt v. Florio | 914 N.E.2d 963 (Mass. Ct. App., 2009) | 75 Mass.App.Ct. 482 (2009) |
This Massachusetts case involves an appeal of a summary judgment in favor of the landlord-defendant concerning an unprovoked dog attack. The dog, described as a pit bull terrier, was kept by a tenant of Florio's. The court found that, while the defendants cannot be held strictly liable by virtue the dog's breed, "knowledge of that breed and its propensities may properly be a factor to be considered in determining whether the defendants were negligent under common-law principles." Reviewing the record de novo, the court held that this question and the defendant's knowledge of the dog's propensities, created a genuine issue of material fact. The order of summary judgment for defendant was reversed and the case was remanded. |
Case |
| MA - Horse - § 3. Sleigh or sled; bells | M.G.L.A. 89 § 3 | This Massachusetts law states that no person shall travel on a way with a sleigh or sled drawn by a horse, unless there are at least three bells attached to some part of the harness. | Statute | |
| Reece v. Edmonton (City) | 335 DLR (4th) 600; 513 AR 199; [2011] CarswellAlta 1349; 530 WAC 199 | This case dealt with the procedure the applicants used to get their claim heard by the court. The respondent City holds a licence under the Wildlife Act, R.S.A. 2000, c. W‑10 to operate a zoo, which houses a lone Asian elephant named Lucy. The appellants commenced this action by originating notice for an order. The chambers judge concluded that the proceedings were an abuse of process because a private litigant cannot seek a declaration that the respondent is in breach of a penal provision in a statute, namely that the elephant was kept in distress because of health concerns. Alternatively, he concluded that the application should have been brought by way of statement of claim, not originating notice. Further, the chambers judge concluded that the appellants had no private interest standing, and that there were barriers to them being awarded public interest standing. On appeal, the parties raised two issues: (1) whether the chambers judge erred in denying the appellants standing to seek a declaration; and (2) whether the chambers judge erred in concluding that the proceedings were an abuse of process. This court held that the chambers judge came to the correct conclusion that these proceedings are an abuse of process. APPEAL DISMISSED. | Case | |
| OK - Wildlife - Part 5. Possession of Wildlife. | 29 Okl.St.Ann. § 7-501 - 504 | OK ST T. 29 § 7-501 - 504 | Under these Oklahoma statutes, no person may possess any wildlife or parts thereof during the closed season, any endangered or threatened species or parts thereof at any time, or any native bear or native cat that will grow to reach the weight of 50 lbs. or more, with exceptions. A conviction could result in a fine of $100-$500 and/or by imprisonment up to 30 days. In addition, no person may buy, barter, trade, or sell all or any part of any fish or wildlife or the nest or eggs of any bird protected by law, with exceptions. A first violation could result in a fine of $100 to $500 and/or by imprisonment up to 60 days. | Statute |
| MN - Hunting - Chapter 97A. Game and Fish. General Provisions. | M. S. A. § 97A.037 | MN ST § 97A.037 | This law reflects Minnesota's hunter harassment provision. This law prohibits the intentional interference with the taking of wild animals. A person is also prohibited from disturbing wild animals to prevent or disrupt their lawful taking. Further, a person who has the intent to violate this law may not enter or remain on public lands or private land without permission of the owner. A person must obey the order of a peace officer to stop the harassing conduct that violates this section if the officer observes the conduct. Violation of this subdivision is a misdemeanor. | Statute |
| CA - Import, dog - Chapter 1.5. Dog Importation: Health Certificates | West's Ann. Cal. Health & Safety Code § 121720 - 121723 | This chapter relates to importation of dogs into California for sale purposes. A person seeking to bring a dog into this state or importing dogs into this state for the purpose of resale or change of ownership shall obtain a health certificate for that dog, completed by a licensed veterinarian and is dated within 10 days prior to the date on which the dog is brought into the state. However, this chapter does not apply to a person who brings a dog into the state that will not be offered for resale or if the ownership of the dog is not expected to change or to dogs used military or law enforcement work. A person who violates a provision of this chapter is guilty of an infraction, punishable by a fine not to exceed $250 for each dog for which a violation has occurred. | Statute | |
| Leider v. Lewis | 2 Cal. 5th 1121, 394 P.3d 1055 (2017) | 2017 WL 2276526 (Cal. May 25, 2017) | The Plaintiffs, Residents of Los Angeles, brought a taxpayer action against the Defendants, the City of Los Angeles and the Los Angeles Zoo, alleging elephant abuse in violation of various Penal Code provisions. The Superior Court, Los Angeles County, granted the Defendants summary judgment. The Residents appealed. At trial, the Residents were awarded injunctive and declaratory relief. The Court of Appeals reversed. On remand, the trial court rejected many of the Resident’s claims, but issued limited injunctions prohibiting use of particular forms of discipline, requiring the elephants to have specific amounts of exercise time, and requiring the rototilling of soil in exhibit. Both parties appealed. The Court of Appeals affirmed. The Supreme Court of California granted review and reversed the Court of Appeals. The Supreme Court held that: (1) the prior Court of Appeals decision was not law of the case as to the argument that the Residents was precluded from obtaining injunctive relief for conduct that violated Penal Code, and (2) the Residents' challenge to the city's treatment of elephants improperly sought injunctive relief for Penal Code violations. | Case |