Results
Displaying 5971 - 5980 of 6638
| Title | Citation | Alternate Citation | Summary | Type |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Center for Biological Diversity v. Little | --- F.Supp.3d ----, 2024 WL 1178565 (D. Idaho Mar. 19, 2024) | 2024 WL 1178565 (D.Idaho, 2024) | This case was brought by plaintiffs to challenge an Idaho law that authorizes wolf trapping and snaring in grizzly bear habitat. Plaintiffs argue that the authorization of this trapping activity will lead to the unlawful taking of grizzly bears, in violation of the Endangered Species Act (ESA). Plaintiffs seek to enjoin the state's authorization of trapping in these areas until the state obtains an incidental take permit from the US Fish and Wildlife Service. The court found that there was ample evidence to show that that lawfully set wolf traps and snares are reasonably likely to take grizzly bears in Idaho. However, the court did not find sufficient evidence to show that trapping needs to be banned year round to protect grizzly bears in the state. Accordingly the court granted the injunction, but limited it to the period when grizzly bears are reasonably certain to be out of their dens. | Case |
| Colombia - Animal control - Ley 2054 de 2020 | Ley 2054 de 2020 | This law modifies Law 1801 of 2016. It imposes the duty on all districts or municipalities to establish an animal welfare center, municipal shelters, or transitory homes to take domestic animals to the extent possible according to the financial capacities of the territorial entities. If the district or municipality does not have these centers, it must support the efforts of private animal shelters or foundations that receive domestic animals. If the animal has not been claimed by his or her owner or keeper after thirty days, the animal will be declared abandoned, and the authorities will proceed to promote his or her adoption. This law also establishes that domestic animals or pets cannot be restricted from common areas in apartment buildings. Dogs have to be leashed, and in the case of potentially dangerous dogs, they have to be muzzled, and the owner must have the corresponding license in accordance with the law. | Statute | |
| ND - Initiatives - Initiated Constitutional Measure 3 (right to farm) | Measure 3 (2012) | This measure proposed in the 2012 stated: The right of farmers and ranchers to engage in modern farming and ranching practices shall be forever guaranteed in this state. No law shall be enacted which abridges the right of farmers and ranchers to employ agricultural technology, modern livestock production and ranching practices. It passed by 66.9% of voters. | Statute | |
| ND - Lost Property - CHAPTER 60-01. DEPOSITS - GENERAL PROVISIONS. | NDCC 60-01-34 to 43 | ND ST 60-01-34 to 43 | These statutes comprise North Dakota's lost property provisions. | Statute |
| KY - Hunting - Chapter 150. Fish and Wildlife Resources. | KRS § 150.710; 150.990 | KY ST § 150.710; 150.990 | This law comprises Kentucky's hunter harassment law. The law states that no person shall intentionally obstruct or disrupt the right of a person to lawfully take wildlife by hunting, trapping, or fishing. It also provides that the state attorney general or any person directly affected by the unlawful conduct may bring an action to restrain such conduct or to recover damages. | Statute |
| Zimmerman v. Robertson | 854 P.2d 338 (Mont. 1993) |
Plaintiff horse owner sought review of a judgment by the District Court of Yellowstone County, Thirteenth Judicial District (Montana), which entered a directed verdict in favor of defendant veterinarian on the owner's claims of professional negligence. On appeal, the court affirmed the trial court's decision, holding that the owner was required to prove the veterinarian's negligence by expert testimony, and that he failed to do so. In addition, the court The court found that the "defendant's admissions" exception to the expert testimony requirement did not apply because the veterinarian did not admit that he deviated from the standard of care. |
Case | |
| Animal Legal Def. Fund v. Olympic Game Farm, Inc. | 533 P.3d 1170 (Wash. 2023) | 1 Wash.3d 925 (Wash., 2023) | This case is brought by the Animal Legal Defense Fund (Plaintiff) against a private zoo based in Washington state, known as Olympic Game Farm, Inc (Defendant). Plaintiff argues that defendant has violated Washington’s wildlife laws, animal cruelty laws, and the Washington and federal Endangered Species Acts. Plaintiff also argues that defendant has created a public nuisance, which is a nuisance that “affects equally the rights of an entire community or neighborhood, although the extent of that damage may be unequal.” Generally, conduct the Washington legislature has named a public nuisance relating to animals are those which have an adverse impact on public land, such as improper discharge of pollution or animal carcasses, or other interferences with public enjoyment of land and public safety. None of these nuisances reference any animal cruelty laws and no animal protection statues name a nuisance as a violation of those laws. However, plaintiff argued that they have demonstrated that defendant is in violation of animal cruelty and wildlife laws, and asked the court to name the violation of these laws as a public nuisance per se. The court found that previous cases regarding public nuisance claims limit those claims to instances of property infringement or threats to public health and safety. Accordingly, the court held that defendant’s alleged violation of the wildlife, animal cruelty, and endangered species laws, did not constitute a public nuisance. | Case |
| MN - Cruelty - Consolidated Cruelty Statutes | M. S. A. § 343.01 - 40; 609.294; 609.596 - 597 | MN ST 343.01 - 40; MN ST 609.294; 609.596 - 597 | These Minnesota statute comprise the anti-cruelty laws in the state. This section first allows the formation of private prevention of cruelty to animals societies and humane societies and sets forth their obligations by law. "Animal" is defined by this section as every living creature except members of the human race. No person shall overdrive, overload, torture, cruelly beat, neglect, or unjustifiably injure, maim, mutilate, or kill any animal, or cruelly work any animal when it is unfit for labor. Under the neglect component, the statute states that no person shall deprive any animal over which the person has charge or control of necessary food, water, or shelter, among other things. | Statute |
| HI - Impound - Chapter 143. Animals: Licenses and Regulations. | H R S § 143-8 | HI ST § 143-8 | This Hawaii statute provides that, except where licensing requirements are dispensed with, every officer shall seize any unlicensed dog found running at large or found outside a sufficient enclosure even if within the immediate presence of its owner. The animal will then be confined at a pound for forty-eight hours whereupon it can be redeemed by the owner, sold, or humanely destroyed if not reclaimed. Each county council shall have the power to fix the impoundment fee for dogs. | Statute |
| Lincecum v. Smith | 287 So.2d 625 (1973) |
Despite "Good Samaritan" intent, the defendant was liable for conversion where he authorized a sick puppy's euthanasia without first making reasonable efforts to locate its owner. The court also awarded $50 for the puppy's replacement value and $100 for mental anguish and humiliation. |
Case |