|Title||Citation||Alternate Citation||Agency Citation||Summary||Type|
|MI - Impound - Chapter 287. Animal Industry. Use of Dogs and Cats for Research.||MCL 287.388||MI ST 287.388||
This Michigan statute provides that a dealer, a county, city, village, or township operating a dog pound or animal shelter shall not sell or otherwise dispose of a dog or cat within 4 days after its acquisition. If the dog or cat has a collar, license, or other evidence of ownership, the operator of the pound or shelter shall notify the owner in writing and disposition of the animal shall not be made within 7 days from the date of mailing the notice.
|Parker v. Obert's Legacy Dairy, LCC||988 N.E.2d 319 (In. Ct. App., 2013)||2013 WL 1820364||
A neighboring landowner brought a nuisance claim against a dairy farm when the dairy farm decided to expand its operations; the dairy farm, however, used Indiana’s Right to Farm Act as an affirmative defense. Agreeing with the dairy farm, the trial court granted the dairy farm’s motion for summary judgment. Upon appeal, the appeals court affirmed the lower court’s decision.
|OK - Newcastle - Title IX: General Regulations (Chapter: 90: Animals)||Newcastle City Code §§ 90.04, 90.99||
This Newcastle, Oklahoma ordinance declares it to be unlawful and an offense for any person to keep any animal within the corporate limits of the city except as provided by these provisions. A violation of this ordinance will result in a fine not to exceed $200.
|In re: RONALD DeBRUIN||54 Agric. Dec. 876 (1995)||1995 WL 464872 (U.S.D.A.)||Respondent's failure to file timely answer or deny allegations of complaint constitutes admission of allegations in complaint and waiver of hearing.||Case|
|State v. Browning||State v. Browning, 50 S.E. 185 (S.C. 1905).||
The defendant was convicted of cruelty to animals for the overworking of his mule. The defendant appealed the desicision by the lower court to the circuit court. The circuit court affirmed the lower court and the defendant agained appealed. The Supreme Court of South Carolina held that jursidiction was proper against the defendant and the evidence supported a finding of ownership by the defendant. Thus, the Court affirmed the lower court's decision.
|IN - Wild Animal - Rule 11. Wild Animal Possession Permits.||Ind. Admin. Code tit. 312, r. 9-11-1 to 15||312 IAC 9-11-1 to 15||
This chapter of regulations provides the rules and requirements for possession of wild animals in Indiana.
|Gruber v. YMCA of Greater Indianapolis||34 N.E.3d 264 (Ind. Ct. App. 2015)||2015 WL 3534886 (Ind. Ct. App. 2015)||An eleven-year-old boy was at a YMCA camp when a pig—which had never injured anyone or exhibited any dangerous propensities—stuck its head between the bars of its pen and grabbed the boy's hand, causing injuries. The boy and his mother sued the camp, and the camp filed a motion for summary judgment. The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of the camp. On appeal, the boy and his mother asked the court to change the standard for liability of owners of domestic animals to that of strict liability when the animal was not a cat or dog. Since the Indiana Supreme Court precedent was clear that this general rule applied to all domestic animals—and not just cats and dogs—the court declined their invitation to alter the standard. The trial court's entry of summary judgment in favor of the camp was therefore affirmed.||Case|
|Price v. Brown, V.M.D.||131 Montg. Co. L. R. 150 (1994)||Plaintiff's bull dog went to defendant veterinarian for surgery to correct a prolapsed urethra. The dog died a few days later. The plaintiff then sought to recover the value of the dog on a strict theory of bailment. Defendant filed a preliminary objection asserting that this doctrine was inapplicable and could not afford relief. The court held that the plaintiff had failed to state a claim from which relief could be sought and dismissed the complaint. The court, however, allowed the plaintiff to amend the compliant.In holding to sustain the defendant's preliminary objection, the court reasoned that since veterinarians are part of a professional discipline, in order to recover damages for the injury or the death to an animal entrusted to a veterinarian's care, a plaintiff must prove professional negligence instead of a bailiff arrangement.||Case|
|NH - Exotic Pets, Wildlife - Chapter 207. Import, Possession, or Release of Wildlife.||N.H. Rev. Stat. § 207:14 - 207:15-a||NH ST § 207:14 - 207:15-a||
This New Hampshire section states that no person shall import, possess, sell, exhibit, or release any live marine species or wildlife, or the eggs or progeny thereof, without first obtaining a permit from the executive director except as otherwise permitted. The executive director has the authority to determine the time period and any other conditions governing the issuance of such permit. The executive director may refuse to issue a permit if he determines that such issuance may pose significant disease, genetic, ecological, environmental, health, safety, or welfare risks to persons, marine species or wildlife. Any wildlife release or imported contrary to these provisions are subject to seizure.
|MA - Possession - Chapter 131. Inland Fisheries and Game and Other Natural Resources.||M.G.L.A. 131 § 75A||MA ST 131 § 75A||
Massachusetts specifically protects the eagle as a bird of prey from hunting or possession, unless provided by permit. The law further prohibits the possession, harassment or harming of the eggs and nests of birds of prey. Notably, sale and transportation are not specifically listed under the statute. .