Results
| Title | Citation | Alternate Citation | Summary | Type |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| MA - Hunting - Chapter 131. Inland Fisheries and Game and Other Natural Resources. | M.G.L.A. 131 § 5C | MA ST 131 § 5C | This law reflects Massachusetts' hunter harassment provision. Under the law, no person shall obstruct, interfere with or otherwise prevent the lawful taking of fish or wildlife by another at the locale where such activity is taking place. Acts prohibited include, but are not limited to, driving or disturbing wildlife, harassing another engaged in lawful taking of fish or wildlife, interjecting oneself into the line of fire, or erecting barriers to prevent access. A person may seek an injunction to prevent violation of this section and a person who sustains damages from any act in violation of the law may bring a civil action for punitive damages. | Statute |
| State v. Hanson | 89 P.3d 544 (Kansas, 2004) | 2004 WL 1077319 (Kansas), 277 Kan. 855 (2004) |
Defendant's dogs were released by owner, resulting in their attack of a neighbor's dog and its subsequent death. On appeal, the conviction was reversed for failure to show owner had knowledge of vicious propensity. |
Case |
| Tracey v. Solesky | Not Reported in A.3d, 2012 WL 1432263 (Md.,2012) |
In this Maryland case, the Court of Appeals establishes a new standard of liability for a landlord who has knowledge of the presence of a pit bull or cross-bred pit bull dog and also modifies the common law liability as it relates to the pit bull breed of dogs. In doing so, the Court now holds that because of the "aggressive and vicious nature and its capability to inflect serious and sometimes fatal injuries," pit bull dogs and cross-bred pit bulls are now categorized as "inherently dangerous." Upon a plaintiff's sufficient proof that an attacking dog is a pit bull or pit bull mix, a person who knows that the dog is of the pit bull breed, including a landlord, is strictly liable for damages caused to the plaintiff who was attacked. The case was remanded to trial court with this modification to common law. This opinion was Superseded by Tracey v. Solesky , 427 Md. 627 (Md., 2012). |
Case | |
| IL - Elephant - 5/48-11. Unlawful use of an elephant in a traveling animal act | 720 I.L.C.S. 5/48-11 | IL ST CH 720 § 5/48-11 | This Illinois law states that a person commits unlawful use of an elephant in a traveling animal act when he or she knowingly allows for the participation of an African elephant (Loxodonta Africana) or Asian elephant (Elephas maximus) protected under the federal Endangered Species Act of 1973 in a traveling animal act. Violation is a Class A misdemeanor. This Section does not apply to an exhibition of elephants at a non-mobile, permanent institution, or other facility. | Statute |
| Irwin v. Degtiarov | 85 Mass.App.Ct. 234 (2014) | 8 N.E.3d 296 (2014) | In this case, Degtiarov's unleashed dog attacked Irwin's dog without provocation. Though Irwin's dog survived, there were significant veterinary costs. Irwin brought this suit for damages in the form of veterinary costs, which were granted by the district court and affirmed by the appellate court. The sole issue on appeal considers whether damages should be capped at the market value of the dog, despite the reasonableness of the veterinary costs necessary to treat the dog's injuries. The appellate court affirms the damages for reasonable veterinary costs that were incurred for damage caused by a dog, even if these costs exceed the market or replacement value of the animal injured by the dog. | Case |
| AK - Trusts - § 13.12.907. Honorary trusts; trusts for pets | AS § 13.12.907 | AK ST § 13.12.907 | This Alaska statute provides that trusts for the continuing care of designated domestic animals are valid, provided they are a duration of 21 years or less. The trust terminates when a living animal is no longer covered by the trust. Any remaining trust funds do not go to the trustee, but rather transfer by the order stipulated in the statute. | Statute |
| State v. Long | 991 P.2d 102 (Wash.App. Div. 2,2000) | 98 Wash.App. 669 (Wash.App. Div. 2,2000) |
Defendant shot and killed two hunting dogs, estimated to be worth $5,000 to $8,000 each, who were chasing deer across his property. The defendant was later convicted by the jury under the first degree malicious mischief felony for “knowingly and maliciously ... [causing] physical damage to the property of another in an amount exceeding one thousand five hundred dollars.” On appeal, the court upheld the jury’s conviction because the defendant had no right to kill the dogs chasing deer across his property and because the prosecution was allowed to charge under the first degree malicious mischief felony for “knowingly and maliciously ... [causing] physical damage to the property of another in an amount exceeding one thousand five hundred dollars.” |
Case |
| ID - Dangerous Dogs running at large - Chapter 28. Dogs. | I.C. § 25-2805 | ID ST § 25-2805 | This Idaho statute provides that any person who lets his or her dog run at large after a complaint has been made to the sheriff shall be guilty of an infraction punishable as provided in section 18-113A, Idaho Code. Any person who lets his or her dog physically attack someone when not provoked shall be guilty of a misdemeanor in addition to any liability as provided in section 25-2806, Idaho Code. For a second or subsequent violation of this subsection, the court may, in the interest of public safety, order the owner to have the vicious dog destroyed or may direct the appropriate authorities to destroy the dog. | Statute |
| City of Marion v. Schoenwald | 631 N.W.2d 213 (S.D.,2001) | 2001 SD 95 |
To keep excessive numbers of large dogs from becoming a public nuisance, the City of Marion, South Dakota passed an ordinance that, among other things, limited households to four dogs, only two of which could weigh over 25 pounds. Schoenwald owned three dogs: one shepherd-collie mix weighing 75 pounds and two golden retrievers, weighing 30 pounds and 20 pounds. She was then notified that by housing three dogs weighing over 25 pounds she was in violation of the ordinance. She failed to comply with the City's order to remove one dog and was issued a citation. The Supreme Court reversed the lower court's ruling in Schoenwald's favor and found that South Dakota law permits municipalities broad power to regulate the keeping of dogs; thus the weight limitation included in the City's comprehensive pet ordinance was within its authority. |
Case |
| Argentina - Wildlife - Ley 22.421, 1981 | LEY Nº 22.421 | Ley 22.421 is the the law for the protection of wild fauna. It regulates conservation and the use of the wild fauna in Argentina. This law establishes that the protection of wild fauna is of public interest and therefore all the citizens have the duty to protect it. When a person resulted harmed when executing this duty, they can seek administrative compensation. Article 3 establishes what animals are considered wild fauna, wild animals, wild animals that live under the control of humans, in natural or artificial environments, and domestic animals that, for any reason, return to the wild. Wildlife are deemed to be part of this category in terms of this law, with exception of the animals subject to fishing laws. Other matters regulated by this law include national and international trade and transportation of wild fauna, protection of the environment, hunting and its requirements, and the responsibilities of the authorities in prosecuting crimes and imposing penalties. | Statute |