|Title||Citation||Alternate Citation||Agency Citation||Summary||Type|
|Com. v. Kneller||971 A.2d 495 (Pa.Super.,2009)||2009 WL 215322 (Pa.Super.), 2009 PA Super 18||Defendant appealed a conviction for criminal conspiracy to commit cruelty to animals after Defendant provided a gun and instructed her boyfriend to shoot and kill their dog after the dog allegedly bit Defendant’s child. The Superior Court of Pennsylvania reversed the conviction, finding the relevant animal cruelty statute to be ambiguous, thus requiring the reversal under the rule of lenity. Concurring and dissenting opinions were filed, in which both agreed that the statute is unambiguous as to whether a dog owner may destroy his or her dog by use of a firearm when that dog has attacked another person, but disagreed as to whether sufficient evidence was offered to show that the dog in fact attacked another person. (See Supreme Court order - Com. v. Kneller, 978 A.2d 716, 2009 WL 5154265 (Pa.,2009)).||Case|
|NE - Swap Meets - (i) Exotic Animal Auctions and Swap Meets||Neb.Rev.St. 54-7,105 - 110||NE ST § 54-7,105 - 110||This law requires exotic animal auction or exchange venue organizers to maintain records in order to track animal diseases.||Statute|
|AK - Hunting - § 16.05.790. Obstruction or hindrance of lawful hunting, fishing, trapping, or viewing of fish or game||AS § 16.05.790||AK ST § 16.05.790||This Alaska law constitutes the state's hunter harassment law. Under the law, a person may not intentionally obstruct or hinder another person's lawful hunting, fishing, trapping, or viewing of fish and game. Only a peace officer may arrest a person for violation of this section. Exclusions include lawful competitive hunting, actions taken on private property with the consent of the landowner, and obstruction or hindrance by a person actively engaged in lawful hunting, fishing, or trapping activities. Violation is a misdemeanor with a fine of not more than $500 or imprisonment for not more than 30 days, or both.||Statute|
|CITES - Dates and Places of CITES Meetings||
The following provides meetings of the Conference of the Parties under CITES.
|Brock v. Rowe||Stan Brock, a former NFL star, is suing is neighbor for shooting his two dogs with a bow and arrow. This is an opposition to a motion to dismiss on a claim of emotional distress for loss of family pets. The motion was successful.||Pleading|
|FL - Veterinary - Veterinary Medical Practice.||West's F. S. A. § 474.201 - 221||FL ST § 474.201 - 221||
These are the state's veterinary practice laws. Among the provisions include licensing requirements, laws concerning the state veterinary board, veterinary records laws, and the laws governing disciplinary actions for impaired or incompetent practitioners.
|AZ - Pet Sales - Title 44. Trade and Commerce. Chapter 11. Regulations Concerning Particular Businesses.||A. R. S. 44-1799 - 1799.11||AZ ST 44-1799 - 1799.11||
This Arizona statutory section comprises the state's pet shop laws. The section requires that retail pet sellers provide purchasers a notice of rights that includes a statement of good health signed by a veterinarian. Purchasers have fifteen days to return unhealthy or diseased dogs and receive a refund or compensation for reasonable veterinary expenses.
|WA - Importation - Chapter 16-54. Animal Importation||WASH. ADMIN. CODE §16-54-030||WAC 16-54-030||
Washington requires health certificates for the importation of most animals into the state.
|Stout v. U.S. Forest Service||2011 WL 867775 (2011)||
Plaintiff ranch owners grazed cattle within the Murderer's Creek Wild Horse Territory (WHT), an area in which the threatened Middle Columbia River steelhead was present. The Forest Service approved a wild horse management plan in the area, but failed to prepare a Biological Assessment (BA) to determine whether the plan was likely to affect the threatened species, and whether formal consultation with the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) was necessary. The Forest Service’s failure to comply with section 7(a)(2) of the Endangered Species Act (ESA) was arbitrary and capricious, and was ordered to consult with NMFS on its plan.
|Johnson v. Douglas||734 N.Y.S.2d 847 (Mem) (N.Y.A.D. 2 Dept. 2001)||289 A.D.2d 202 (2001)||
Plaintiff appealed an order denying her claim to emotional distress damages presumably for the death of her dog. The court held that it is well established that a pet owner in New York cannot recover damages for emotional distress caused by the negligent killing of a dog.