|Minnesota 1860-1872 Public Laws: OFFENSES AGAINST CHASTITY, MORALITY, ETC.||Minn. Stat. ch. 96 § 18 (1858)||Section 18 of Chapter 96 from Minnesota Public Statutes 1860-1872 covers the treatment of animals. Specifically, the statute covers the punishment for cruelty to animals.||Statute|
|AL - Irondale - Breed - Sec. 3-90 - Pit Bulls||IRONDALE, AL., CODE OF ORDINANCES, § 3-90, 3-91||
In Irondale, Alabama, it is unlawful to keep, harbor, own or possess any pit bull dog. However, pit bull dogs registered on the date of publication may be kept within the city subject to certain requirements. These requirements include proper confinement, the use of a leash and muzzle, the posting of “Beware of Dog” signs, the taking of identification photographs, and the maintenance of liability insurance ($50,000). Failure to comply may result in the seizure of the dog, a fine up to $500 and/or imprisonment up to 30 days. The city also bans Presa Canario dogs.
|Earth Island Institute v. Evans||2004 WL 1774221 (N.D. Cal. 2004) (No reporter citation)||
The Secretary of Commerce made a final finding that the intentional deployment on or encirclement of dolphins using purse seine nets did not have a significant adverse effect on any depleted dolphin stock in the Eastern Tropical Pacific Ocean. Several organizations challenged that finding under the Administrative Procedures Act, and the matter came before this Court along with simultaneous motions for summary judgment from both the plaintiff and defendant. The Court concluded that Plaintiff's met their burden of demonstrating that they are entitled to judgment, and the finding of the Secretary is set aside.
|WA - Fur - Chapter 77.15. Fish and Wildlife Enforcement Code (Unlawful Trapping Provisions)||West's RCWA 77.15.190 - 194||WA ST 77.15.190 - 194||This set of Washington laws describes unlawful trapping. A person is guilty of misdemeanor unlawful trapping if the person sets out traps without the necessary licenses or permits; violates any rule on seasons or bag limits; or fails to identify the owner of the traps or devices with a tag or inscription. The director may revoke the trapper's license of a person placing unauthorized traps on private property and may remove those traps. It is unlawful to use or authorize the use of any steel-jawed leghold trap, neck snare, or other body-gripping trap to capture any mammal for recreation or commerce in fur except as provided in Section 77.15.194.||Statute|
|ANIMAL LEGAL DEFENSE FUND, ANIMAL WELFARE INSTITUTE, COMPLAINT FOR VALERIE BUCHANAN, JANE GARRISON, AND NANCY MEGNA DECLARATORY||This action concerns a lawsuit filed by the Animal Legal Defense Fund (ALDF), et al, over the lack of action by the federal agency, the Animal & Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) to adopt a policy on what constitutes appropriate conditions for primates in federally licensed or registered facilities. Specifically, the complaint alleges that the failure of the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) of the United State Department of Agriculture to make a final decision concerning the defendants' proposed “Policy On Environment Enhancement For Nonhuman Primates.” See 64 Fed. Reg. 38,145 (July 15, 1999) (Policy). APHIS determined at least seven years ago that APHIS enforcement officials and the regulated community urgently need such a policy to insure that primates are housed in “physical environments adequate to promote the[ir] psychological well-being,” as required by the Animal Welfare Act (AWA). 7 U.S.C. § 2143. By failing to make a final decision on the proposed Policy, defendants are violating the Animal Welfare Act, 7 U.S.C. § 2143, and are unreasonably delaying and/or unlawfully withholding agency action in violation of the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. § 706(1).||Pleading|
|Richard v. Hoban||1970CarswellNB126||3 N.B.R. (2d) 81, 16 D.L.R. (3d) 679||
The child plaintiff was attacked and bitten by a chained German Shepherd after she put her arm around the dog's neck to hug or play with it; she sustained scarring lacerations of her head, cheek and eyelid that required 5 days' hospitalization after plastic surgery. The trial judge earlier held that because the dog, had two months previously, bitten a young boy on the face and ear in an unprovoked attack, the owner had prior knowledge of the dog's propensity to bite children, yet he kept the dog regardless. The owner was thus strictly liable under the doctrine of scienter. The Court of Appeal reversed this holding, with two judges finding that the boy in the earlier attack had been injured accidentally by the dog's dew-claw, rather than being bitten, so that there was insufficient notice to the dog's owner of any vicious propensity; thus he was not strictly liable in scienter.
|MA - Initiatives - Question 3, 2000 (dog racing)||Question 3 (2000)||This Massachusetts ballot question asked voters in 2000 whether they wanted to prohibit in Massachusetts any dog racing where any form of betting or wagering on the speed or ability of dogs occurs. Any person violating the proposed law could be required to pay a civil penalty of not less than $20,000 to the State Racing Commission. The question failed with 49% voting "yes" and 51% voting "no" on the question.||Statute|
|ST. LOUIS, I. M. & S. RY. CO. v. PHILPOT||77 S.W. 901 (Ark. 1903)||72 Ark. 23 (1903)||
In this Arkansas case, the plaintiff was the owner of a "valuable bloodhound bitch." In April of 1900, she was killed by a passenger train of the defendant. Plaintiff sued the St. Louis, Iron Mountain & Southern Railway Company for the damages he suffered by reason of the killing of his dog. He alleged in his complaint that the defendant carelessly and negligently ran one of its trains over and killed his bloodhound bitch, with a value of $250. The court found that the testimony of Miller, a man who bred bloodhounds, furnished the jury with information which was reasonably calculated to afford them assistance in arriving at a fair valuation of the dog. The evidence was sufficient to sustain the verdict, according to the court.
|WV - Dogs - Consolidated Dog Laws||W. Va. Code, §§ 5A-4-4; § 7-7-6d; § 19-9-1 - 40; § 19-20-1 - 26; § 19-20A-1 - 8; § 19-20B-1 - 6; § 19-20C-1 - 3; § 19-20D-1 - 3; § 20-2-5; § 20-2-5f; § 20-2-16; § 20-2-22a; § 20-2-56a||WV ST §§ 5A-4-4; § 7-7-6d; § 19-9-1 - 40; § 19-20-1 - 26; § 19-20A-1 - 8; § 19-20B-1 - 6; § 19-20C-1 - 3; § 19-20D-1 - 3; § 20-2-5; § 20-2-5f; § 20-2-16; § 20-2-22a; § 20-2-56a||
These West Virginia statutes comprise the state's dog laws. Among the provisions include registration requirements, rabies control, and hunting laws that impact dogs.
|TX - Dog - Consolidated Dog Laws||V.T.C.A., Health & Safety Code §§ 821.076 - 081; 822.001 - 100; § 823.001 - 009; § 826.001 - 055; § 828.001 - 015; V. T. C. A., Parks & Wildlife Code § 62.0065 ; § 62.016||TX HEALTH & 821.076 - 081; 822.001 - 100; § 823.001 - 009; § 826.001 - 055; § 828.001 - 015; TX PARKS & WILD § 62.0065 ; § 62.016||These Texas statutes comprise the state's dog laws. Among the provisions include the dangerous dog laws, registration and vaccination requirements, and sterilization laws.||Statute|