Results
Displaying 121 - 130 of 6637
| Title | Citation | Alternate Citation | Summary | Type |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| WY - Hunting - Article 1. Game Bird Farms. | W.S.1977 §§ 23-5-101 - 111 | WY ST §§ 23-5-101 - 111 | This Wyoming statute provides that one who desires to operate a game bird farm must file a verified declaration that states the purpose of the farm (breeding, propagating, or hunting) and a legal description of the tract of land. | Statute |
| SC - Hunting - Article 13. Fox and Coyote Hunting Enclosures | Code 1976 § 50-11-2600 - 2650 | SD ST § 50-11-2600 - 2650 | Under these South Carolina statutes, it is unlawful to buy, sell, transfer, possess, or release a live coyote or fox except as permitted. Foxes and coyotes obtained to stock hunting enclosures may be obtained only by the enclosure owner or operator from a South Carolina licensed trapper. A violation of any provision is a misdemeanor; the first offense is punishable by a fine of $50-500, and/or imprisonment up to 30 days. | Statute |
| ALDF v. Quigg | 932 F.2d 920(Fed. Cir. 1991) | 1991 U.S. App. LEXIS 7884 | This case establishes the relative inability of third parties to challenge the veracity of an existing patent for genetically engineered animals. Judicial review is rare in such cases because third party plaintiffs, under the Administrative Procedures Act, lack standing to challenge the Patent and Trademark Office's interpretation of existing law. | Case |
| 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 |
| LA - Facility dog - § 284. Facility dogs; use in court; procedure | LSA-R.S. 15:284 | LA R.S. 15:284 | This 2018 Louisiana law allows a witness who is under 18 or who has a developmental disability (as defined) to have a facility dog, if available, accompany him or her while testifying in court. Additionally, the court may allow any witness who does not meet those criteria to have a facility dog, if available, while testifying in court. Under this section, a "facility dog" means a dog that is certified and a graduate of an assistance dog organization that is accredited by Assistance Dogs International or a similar internationally recognized organization whose main purpose is to grant accreditation to assistance dog organizations based on standards of excellence in all areas of assistance dog acquisition, training, and placement. | Statute |
| Mellin v. Northern Security Insurance Company, Inc. | 115 A.3d 799 (N.H., 2015) | 167 N.H. 544 (2015) | This is an appeal brought by Mr. Mellin because his insurer, Northern, would not cover damages to Mellin's condominium caused by the odor of cat urine emanating from another tenant's condominium. This court reverses the lower court by deciding that the policy included pollution exclusion, but was ambiguous in whether that encompassed cat urine odor, so Mellin's claim is not precluded. The case was remanded for further proceedings. Two of the five judges dissent, concluding that the word 'pollutant' was defined and excluded cat urine odor. | Case |
| VT - Endangered Species - Chapter 123. Protection of Endangered Species | 10 V.S.A. § 5401 - 10 | VT ST T 10 § 5401 - 10 | These Vermont statutes set out the state's endangered species provisions, including the related definitions, rules for listing species, and regulations for establishing the committees. Violation of the provisions against taking incur criminal enforcement and restitution. Interestingly, there is a provision that provides for the location of listed endangered species to be kept confidential. | Statute |
| OK - Dog bite - Oklahoma Dog Bite Laws | 4 Okl. St. Ann. § 41 - 47 | OK ST T. 4 § 41 - 47 | These statutes comprise Oklahoma's Dangerous Dog Laws. The state imposes strict liability for dog bites; "the owner or owners of any dog shall be liable for damages to the full amount of any damages sustained when his dog, without provocation, bites or injures any person while such person is in or on a place where he has a lawful right to be." Further, any person may lawfully kill a dog who is chasing that person's livestock. An owner of a dog that has been adjudged "dangerous" must register the dog, enclose the dog except when out on a leash with muzzle, and post $50,000 in liability insurance. An owner who does not follow the provisions not only faces the confiscation of his or her dog, but may also be subject to a one-year misdemeanor. | Statute |
| State v. Neal | State v. Neal, 27 S.E. 81 (N.C. 1897) |
The defendant was convicted under North Carolina's cruelty to animal statute for the killing of his neighbor's chickens. The defendant appealed to the Supreme Court because the trial court refused to give some of his instructions to the jury. The Supreme Court that the lower court was correct and affirmed. |
Case | |
| State v. Weeks | 1992 Ohio App. LEXIS 1090 | Defendant was convicted of violating Ohio's animal fighting statute, and appealed. He challenged the conviction, arguing that the statute was unconstitutionally vague and overbroad. The court upheld the conviction. The court ruled that although a portion of the statute was overly vague and broad, that portion was severable from the remainder. The court also held that defendant did not demonstrate that the statute was unconstitutional as applied to him. | Case |