Results
| Title | Citation | Alternate Citation | Summary | Type |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| VA - Endangered Species - Article 6. Endangered Species. | Va. Code Ann. §§ 29.1-563 - 570 | VA ST §§ 29.1-563 - 570 | The taking, transportation, possession, sale, or offer for sale within the Commonwealth of any fish or wildlife appearing on any list of threatened or endangered species published by the United States Secretary of the Interior pursuant to the provisions of the federal Endangered Species Act of 1973 (P.L. 93-205), or any modifications or amendments thereto, is prohibited except as provided in § 29.1-568. Interestingly, the state mandates that anyone who keeps a non-native or exotic reptile must keep the reptile so as to prevent it from running-at-large or escaping. Violation of this provision is a Class 2 misdemeanor. | Statute |
| KS - Sterling - Breed - Pit Bull Ordinance (2-113. Prohibited owning; exemptions) | STERLING, KS., CITY CODE § 2-113 |
In Sterling, Kansas, it is unlawful to keep, harbor, own or in any way possess any "Rottweiler" dog or "Pit Bull" dog. Pit Bulls include the Staffordshire bull terrier, American pit bull terrier, the American Staffordshire terrier, or any dog which has the appearance and characteristics of being predominantly of these breeds or a combination of any of these breeds. |
Local Ordinance | |
| Becker v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. | 416 N.W.2d 906 (Wis.,1987) | 141 Wis.2d 804 (1987) |
Motorist sued dog owner after he was injured in a car accident allegedly caused by dog. The Court of Appeals held that the “injury by dog” statute creates strict liability for any injury or damage caused by dog if owner was negligent (with public policy exceptions). Here, the dog owner was not strictly liable because he was not negligent when his dog escaped from its enclosure. |
Case |
| In the Matter of: Thomas E. Rainelli | 1999 NOAA LEXIS 10 | 1999 NOAA LEXIS 10 |
This case involves violations of the MMPA by taking, in the form of harassment by feeding or attempting to feed wild dolphins. The respondents, a captain of a vessel used in a dolphin-feeding encounter, and the sole shareholder of a boat renal company, were both found guilty and assessed civil penalties in the amount of $4500. Though the shareholder was not on the vessel when it committed the feeding violations, he was found guilty of violating the MMPA, by providing a platform from which feeding is conducted or supported. |
Case |
| UK - Wildlife - The Humane Trapping Standards Regulations 2019 | 2019 No. 22 | These Regulations amend the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 in order to implement requirements contained in the agreement on international humane trapping standards concluded between the European Community, the Government of Canada and the Government of the Russian Federation. They introduce a prohibition on using or setting in position any trap or snare for the purpose of killing or taking the Stoat or the European Beaver. The prohibitions in section 11(2)(a) and (b) (as revised) (relating to using or setting in position a trap or snare) do not apply in relation to any animal specified in Schedule 6ZA where the use or setting of the trap is under and in accordance with a Government issued license. | Statute | |
| England - Animal Welfare - The Mutilations (Permitted Procedures) (England) Regulations 2007 | 2007 No. 1100 | These Regulations specify the procedures that are exempt from the Section 5 mutilation prohibition of the Animal Welfare Act 2006. Procedures include: ear tagging for identification and castration for control of reproduction, for certain species. Anaesthetics, and other requirements, are also set out concerning certain species. | Statute | |
| WY - Wildlife, exotic hybrid - Chapter 1. Game and Fish Administration. | W. S. 1977 §§ 23-1-101 to 109 | WY ST §§ 23-1-101 to 109 | This section of Wyoming statutes states that all wildlife in the state is considered the property of the state. It further provides that there is no private ownership of live animals classified in this act as big or trophy game animals. Exotic species means any wild animals, including amphibians, reptiles, mollusks, crustaceans or birds not found in a wild, free or unconfined status in Wyoming. This section also contains the management laws for delisted gray wolves that were repealed in 2012. | Statute |
| SC - Equine Activity Liability - Article 7. Equine Liability Immunity. | Code 1976 § 47-9-710 - 730 | SC ST § 47-9-710 - 730 | This South Carolina section provides that an equine activity sponsor or an equine professional is not liable for an injury to or the death of a participant resulting from an inherent risk of equine activity. The statute also requires the visible displaying of warning signs that alert participants to the limitation of liability by law. Failure to comply with the requirements concerning warning signs and notices provided in this section prevents an equine activity sponsor or equine professional from invoking the privileges of immunity provided by this article. | Statute |
| Colorado Dog Fanciers v. City and County of Denver | 820 P.2d 644 (Colo. 1991) | The plaintiffs, dog owners and related canine and humane associations (dog owners), filed a complaint in the Denver District Court against the defendant, City and County of Denver (city), seeking both a declaratory judgment on the constitutionality of the "Pit Bulls Prohibited" ordinance, Denver, Colo., Rev.Mun.Code § 8-55 (1989), and injunctive relief to prevent enforcement. The dog owners in this case claim the ordinance is unconstitutional, violating their rights to procedural and substantive due process and equal protection, is unconstitutionally vague, and constitutes a taking of private property. | Case | |
| Harris v. Anderson County Sheriff's Office | 673 S.E.2d 423 (S.C.,2009) | 381 S.C. 357 (2009); 2009 WL 294756 |
In this South Carolina case, the court considered the meaning of the term "or" in the state's dog bite statute, SC ST 47-3-110, and whether that word allows a plaintiff to pursue a statutory claim against the owner of the dog while that dog is in the care of another. The facts concerned a veterinary assistant who sued a county sheriff's officer after she was bitten by a police dog while the dog was kenneled at the veterinary clinic where she worked. The lower court granted summary judgment for the sheriff's office. The Supreme Court disagreed with this interpretation. Based on a plain language reading of the statute, the Court concluded that the Legislature intended to allow a claim against the owner of the dog when another person has the dog in his care or keeping. |
Case |