Results
| Title | Citation | Alternate Citation | Summary | Type |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| How to add a Statute |
Once you log on, go to the upper gray bar and click on "Add Content." From there, select "Statute." ALL STATUTES MUST FIRST BE SAVED IN PLAIN TEXT FORMAT LIKE IN NOTEPAD. YOU WILL COPY AND PASTE FROM NOTEPAD. THIS MUST BE DONE TO REMOVE FORMATTING. |
Basic page | ||
| State ex rel. Missouri Dept. of Conservation v. Judges of Circuit Court of Reynolds County | 91 S.W.3d 602 (Mo. 2002) |
Sixteen residents who violated portions of the wildlife code challenged the hearings that they received before a panel from the Department of Conservation, which were not conducted in an evidentiary fashion or recorded. The Court found that, pursuant to the rulemaking authority granted under the State constitution to the Department of Conservation, the regulations provide for noncontested hearings unless the permitee is entitled by law to a contested hearing (a "contested case" is a proceeding before an agency in which legal rights, duties or privileges of specific parties are required by law to be determined after hearing). The Court found that no such law applies to this case, citing a case that determined hunting is not a fundamental right. |
Case | |
| NC - Lien - Chapter 90. Medicine and Allied Occupations. | N.C.G.S.A. § 90-187.7 | NC ST § 90-187.7 | This North Carolina statute provides that any animal placed in the custody of a licensed veterinarian for treatment, boarding or other care, unclaimed by its owner for a period of more than 10 days after written notice by registered or certified mail, shall be deemed to be abandoned and may be turned over to the nearest humane society, or dog pound or disposed of as such custodian may deem proper. The giving of proper notice relieves such custodian of liability resulting from the disposal. | Statute |
| Brower v. Evans | 257 F.3d 1058 (2001) |
The district court held that the Secretary's Initial Finding, triggering a change in the dolphin-safe label standard, was not in accordance with the law and constituted an abuse of discretion because the Secretary failed to (1) obtain and consider preliminary data from the congressionally mandated stress studies and (2) apply the proper legal standard to the available scientific information. We affirm. |
Case | |
| Kinara v. Jamaica Bay Riding Academy, Inc. | 783 N.Y.S.2d 636 (N.Y., 2004) | 2004 N.Y. Slip Op. 07464 |
Plaintiff was kicked by a horse ridden by her friend while trail riding. Plaintiff sued the Defendant who owned the horse and trail Plaintiff was riding on. The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of the Defendant and the Court of Appeals affirmed the decision holding Plaintiff assumed the risk. |
Case |
| England and Wales - Hunting, mammals - Hunting Act 2004 | 2004 CHAPTER 37 | An Act controlling the hunting of wild animals with dogs, and prohibiting hare coursing. The hare coursing prohibition covers facilitating, attending, spectating or otherwise. Schedule 1 of the Act provides for exemptions to hunting wild mammals with dogs, to include: stalking, or flushing a wild mammal out of cover provided that this is done to prevent or reduce potential damage elsewhere, for example to livestock or crops; to obtain meat for human or animal consumption or; participation in a field trial competition. For this hunting to be exempt, the stalking or flushing must not involve more than two dogs, or take place on land without the owner’s permission. Further exemption requirements are that one dog may go below ground only, to flush or dig out the mammal in circumstances where the purpose is to prevent or reduce serious damage to game birds or wild birds. Further, conditions require that the mammal must subsequently be shot as soon as possible after being found or flushed. Other exceptions include the hunting of rabbits or rats with dogs. | Statute | |
| Claddie Savage v. Prator | 886 So.2d 523 (La.App. 2 Cir. 2004) | 2004 WL 2240592 (La.App. 2 Cir.) |
A Parish Sheriff informed game clubs the parish ordinance against cockfighting would be enforced, despite the fact that cockfighting tournaments had been held at the game clubs since 1991. The game clubs filed for and received a preliminary injunction against enforcement of the parish ordinance. The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court decision. Reversed by Savage v. Prator , 921 So.2d 51 (La., 2006). |
Case |
| MI - Ordinances - CHAPTER 287. ANIMAL INDUSTRY. DOG LAW OF 1919. | M. C. L. A. 287.289a | MI ST 287.289a | This Michigan law provides that a board of county commissioners may establish, by ordinance, an animal control agency. The animal control agency shall have jurisdiction to enforce this act in any city, village or township which does not have an animal control ordinance. The county's animal control ordinance shall provide for animal control programs, facilities, personnel and necessary expenses incurred in animal control. | Statute |
| IL - Lein - 40/50. Agisters | 770 I.L.C.S. 40/50 | IL ST CH 770 § 40/50 | Agisters and persons keeping, yarding, feeding or pasturing domestic animals, shall have a lien upon the animals agistered, kept, yarded or fed, for the proper charges due for the agisting, keeping, yarding or feeding thereof. | Statute |
| State v. Brown | 771 N.W.2d 267 (N.D.,2009) | 2009 WL 2506287 (N.D.), 2009 ND 150 |
In this North Dakota case, the defendant appeals from a criminal judgment finding she violated the Cass County Animal Control Ordinance after her neighbors reported her barking dogs. In her first appeal ground, Brown contended that the Ordinance constituted an unconstitutional delegation of power. The court disagreed, finding that Cass County adopted a home rule charter and thus had the power to create criminal penalties for violations of ordinances. Brown next argued that the legislature “has statutorily prohibited the county from attempting to regulate dogs as public nuisances.” Since the state has defined certain “dog activities” that constitute a public nuisance, the county is precluded from declaring any other dog-related activity a public nuisance according to defendant. The court found that this broad interpretation would preclude action by the county if the state has exercised any authority and would virtually eliminate the county's authority granted by home-rule authority. The court also rejected Brown’s argument that the Ordinance is unconstitutionally vague. The Ordinance provides that an animal that “barks ... in an excessive or continuous manner” is a public nuisance. The court held that its holding in Kilkenny, 2007 ND 44, ¶¶ 20-25, 729 N.W.2d 120, is controlling here, where the words excessive, continuous, or untimely have a common understanding and are not vague. |
Case |