Results
| Title | Citation | Alternate Citation | Agency Citation | Summary | Type |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| NM - Ordinances - Chapter 77. Animals and Livestock | N. M. S. A. 1978, § 77-1-12 | NM ST § 77-1-12 | This New Mexico statute provides that each municipality and each county shall make provision by ordinance for the seizure and disposition of dogs and cats running at large and not kept or claimed by any person on their premises provided that it does not conflict with state law. | Statute | |
| MD - Fur - Title 10. Wildlife. | MD Code, Natural Resources, § 10-408.1 | MD NAT RES § 10-408.1 | This Maryland law restricts some forms of trapping. Specifically, it provides that a person, while trapping or attempting to trap animals, may not place, set, maintain, or operate any snares, body-gripping, or leghold traps within 150 yards of a permanent human residence. However, the restriction does not apply to body-gripping traps with a jaw spread of less than 6 inches that are placed, maintained, and operated completely submerged in water or snare-type traps used to catch rats or mice. | Statute | |
| State v. Acker | 160 Conn. App. 734 (2015) | 2015 WL 6142904 (Conn. App. Ct., 2015) | Defendant, the director of the Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals of Connecticut, Inc., was charged with 63 counts of animal cruelty for failing to give animals “proper care by exposing [them] to conditions that placed [them] at risk of hypothermia, dehydration, or to conditions injurious to [their] well-being....” Defendant was the director of a nonprofit animal rescue organization and housed rescued dogs in an uninsulated outdoor barn heated solely by space heaters. After a trial, Defendant was convicted of 15 counts and acquitted of the remaining 48 counts of animal cruelty. On appeal, the defendant claimed that (1) there was insufficient evidence to support the conviction and (2)C.G.S.A. § 53-247(a) was unconstitutionally vague as applied to the facts of this case. The appellate court rejected defendant’s claims and affirmed the trial court’s decision. | Case | |
| MT - Equine Activity Liability - Chapter 1. Availability of Remedies--Liability. | MCA 27-1-725 to 27-1-728 | MT ST 27-1-725 to 27-1-728 | The Montana equine activity liability act provides that it is the policy of the state of Montana that a person is not liable for damages sustained by another solely as a result of risks inherent in equine activities if those risks are or should be reasonably obvious, expected, or necessary to persons engaged in equine activities. Liability is not limited by this statute where the equine professional knowingly provided faulty tack or equipment, failed to make reasonable and prudent efforts to determine the ability of the participant to engage safely in the equine activity, owns or otherwise is in lawful possession of the land or facilities upon which the participant sustained injuries because of a known, dangerous latent condition, or if he or she commits an act or omission that constitutes willful or wanton disregard for the safety of the participant or intentionally injures the participant. | Statute | |
| IL - Horse Meat Act - Chapter 225. Professions and Occupations. | 225 ILCS 635/1 - 18 | IL ST CH 225 § 635/1 - 18 | This Act prohibits the slaughter of horses for human consumption as well as importing, exporting, selling, giving, or even possessing horse meat if a person knows or should know that it will be used for human consumption. Violation of this section of the Act is a Class C misdemeanor. The Act does contain several exceptions. Notably, it does not apply to any commonly accepted noncommercial, recreational, or sporting activities. | Statute | |
| US - Marine Mammals - Taking of Marine Mammals Incidental to Commercial Fishing Operations; Authorization for Commercial Fisheri | RIN 0648-AH33 | FR Doc. 04-2981 |
NMFS issued a final rule to implement a new management regime for the unintentional taking of marine mammals incidental to commercial fishing operations, which was published in the Federal Register on August 30, 1995. The purpose of this document is to correct an unintended error in the definition of ``negligible impact,'' which provides a reference to a section number of the regulations that has been changed. |
Administrative | |
| Wemer v. Walker | Slip Copy, 2015 WL 2058960 (Ohio Ct. App. May 1, 2015) |
In this case, James Wemer appealed the lower courts decision to grant summary judgment in favor of the defendant John Walker. Wemer initially filed suit against Walker alleging that the injuries he suffered from a horse-bite at Walker’s barn was due to negligence and wanton recklessness of Walker. The trial court reviewed the issue and granted summary judgment in favor of Walker based on the Equine Immunity statute. The Court of Appeals reversed and remanded the trial court’s decision on appeal. However, the trial court once against granted summary judgement in favor of Walker and Wemer appealed. On the second appeal, the Court of Appeals determined whether or not Walker was immune from liability under the Equine Immunity statute. The Court of Appeals found that Walker was immune from liability under statute because of the fact that Walker had warned Werner that his horses had a tendency to fight and Wemer voluntarily chose to get involved in separating the horses which led to his injuries. The Court of Appeals focused on the fact that both parties had a knowledge regarding equine activity and that Wemer was unable to establish that Walker’s conduct was willful or wanton under the circumstances presented. As a result, the Court of Appeals affirmed the summary judgment in favor of Walker. |
Case | ||
| OH - Domestic Violence - 3113.31 Petitions; protection orders concerning domestic violence | R.C. § 3113.31 | OH ST § 3113.31 | This Ohio law concerns protection orders in cases of domestic violence. In 2014, the law was amended to allow a court to grant a protection order that may: (E)(1)(i) require that the respondent not remove, damage, hide, harm, or dispose of any companion animal owned or possessed by the petitioner; and (j) authorize the petitioner to remove a companion animal owned by the petitioner from the possession of the respondent. “Companion animal” has the same meaning as in section 959.131 of the Revised Code, which is defined as any animal that is kept inside a residential dwelling and any dog or cat regardless of where it is kept. The term “companion animal” does not include livestock or any wild animal. | Statute | |
| MI - Endangered - Part 365. Endangered Species Protection | M. C. L. A. 324.36501 - 07 | MI ST 324.36501 - 07 | The state of Michigan defines an endangered species as "any fish, plant life, or wildlife that is in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant part of its range, other than a species of insecta determined by the department or the Secretary of the United States Department of the Interior to constitute a pest whose protection under this part would present an overwhelming and overriding risk to humans." Violation of the taking provision constitutes a misdemeanor punishable up to 90-days in jail and/or up to $1,0000 in fines. | Statute |