|Title||Citation||Alternate Citation||Agency Citation||Summary||Type|
|NE - Exotic Wildlife - 008 Keeping Wildlife in Captivity||163 NE ADC Ch. 4, § 008||Neb. Admin. R. & Regs. Tit. 163, Ch. 4, § 008,||This Nebraska regulation lists species that are unlawful to keep unless a person is issued a Captive Wildlife Permit, a Controlled Shooting Area Permit, a Rehabilitation Permit or a Scientific Collectors Permit, issued by the Nebraska Game and Parks Commission or under a captive cervine permit issued by the Nebraska Department of Agriculture. Captive Wildlife Permits shall not be issued for wild birds or wild mammals which have been taken or removed from the wild. Provisions for public auctions that deal in captive wild bird or mammals are described in 008.004. Importation and exportation of wildlife are also detailed in this rule.||Administrative|
|SC - Fur - Article 12. Trapping Furbearing Animals, Regulation of Dealers, Buyers, Processors,||Code 1976 § 50-11-2400 - 2575||SD ST § 50-11-2400 - 2575||In South Carolina, a state hunting license and a commercial fur license are required to sell or take furbearing animals for commercial purposes. Trappers may only set traps during trapping season, must show proof of ownership of property or permission to use property where traps are set, must visit his traps daily, and remove any animals caught in the trap. A violation of these statutes is a misdemeanor, which may result in a fine, imprisonment, and/or revocation of a license.||Statute|
|NE - Wildlife - Article 2. Game Law General Provisions||Neb. Rev. St. § 37-201 to 248||NE ST § 37-201 to 248||These statutes comprise the definitional section of Nebraska's wildlife code. Among the definitions include game, aquaculture, wildlife, hunt, and take.||Statute|
|City of La Marque v. Braskey||216 S.W.3d 861 (Tex. Ct. App. 2007)||2007 WL 14481 (Tex. Ct. App.) (unpublished)||
A city's ordinance did not allow a kennel, defined as a place containing more than four dogs and cats, to be operated within 100 feet of a residence, school, or church. A woman kept as many as 100 cats at a time in a shelter within 100 feet of three homes, and she was criminally charged under the ordinance. The court found that the ordinance did not violate the plaintiff's constitutional rights because there was no right to use her property in any manner that she chose.
|Dempsey v. Rosenthal||121 Misc.2d 612 (N.Y. 1983)||468 N.Y.S.2d 441, 37 UCC Rep.Serv. 1091||
A buyer of a poodle brought an action against a kennel, seeking to recover purchase price on ground that poodle was "defective" due to an undescended testicle. The buyer argued that the kennel had breached implied warranty of merchantability and fitness for a particular purpose. The Civil Court of the City of New York held that since the contract of sale did not exclude or modify implied warranty of merchantability, it carried with it such a warranty. In light of this, the poodle was not a merchantable good because a poodle with an undescended testicle would not pass without objection in the trade. Further, the kennel breached the warranty of fitness for a particular purpose since the kennel was aware that the buyer wanted a dog for breeding purposes. This case is also significant because the court also held that a buyer's opportunity to examine the dog when purchasing it does not defeat a warranty claim. Indeed, the type of examination would not be undertaken by a casual buyer of a male puppy. The court allowed buyer to revoke her acceptance of the dog and receive her purchase price.
|Farrior v. Payton||562 P.2d 779 (Hawaii, 1977)||
This Hawaii case involves a suit against owners of dog to recover for injuries sustained when the plaintiffs, in an attempt to avoid what was believed to be an imminent attack by dog, fell off a natural rock wall. Defendants' property abutted this rock wall and defendants considered those people who used the rock wall "trespassers." After defendant's motion for a directed verdict were granted, the plaintiffs appealed. On appeal, the Supreme Court observed that, in an action against an owner or harborer of a dog for injury inflicted by such animal, defendant's scienter (i. e. actual or constructive knowledge) of the vicious or dangerous propensities of the dog is (except where removed by statute) an essential element of the cause of action and a necessary prerequisite to recovery. The evidence in the record established the fact that the Payton family not only knew of their dog's propensity to run and bark at strangers utilizing the 'short-cut' via the human-made seawall and the natural rock wall, but also expected such activity from their German shepherd dog. Indeed, it was predictable that Mrs. Farrior would become frightened and would retreat to a precarious position.
|Keep Michigan Wolves Protected v. State, Dep't of Nat. Res.||Not Reported in N.W.2d2016 WL 6905923 (2016)||Plaintiff, Keep Michigan Wolves Protected (KMWP), appealed an order of the Court of Claims concluding that PA 281 does not violate Michigan's Constitution or statutes, and the granting of summary disposition in favor of defendants, the State of Michigan, the Department of Natural Resources, and the Natural Resources Commission. The issue began in 2011 when the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service removed gray wolves from the federal list of endangered species, returning management of wolf populations to Michigan. In 2012, the governor of Michigan signed PA 520 into law, which added the wolf to the definition of "game" animals. Plaintiff KMWP organized a statewide referendum petition drive to reject PA 520 at the November 4, 2014 general election, which would have rendered PA 520 ineffective unless approved by a majority of voters. In 2013, Michigan's Governor signed into law PA 21 and PA 22, which granted the Natural Resources Commission (NRC) authority to manage wolves. In addition, the laws also gave qualified members of the military free game and fish licenses. Another petition drive was initiated by plaintiff and required signatures were collected to place the issue on the November 2014 ballot. However, in December 2013, before this, Citizens for Professional Wildlife Management (CPWM) circulated a petition to initiate the Scientific Fish and Wildlife Management Act also known as PA 281. This new law would reenact PA 520 and 21, giving the NRC authority for designating game animals, offering free military hunting and fishing licenses, and appropriating $1 million to manage invasive species. In May of 2014, the CPWM certified this initiative petition and submitted directly it to the Legislature to enact or reject the law. The Legislature adopted the law, which became known as PA 281. Notably, at the November 2014 election, a majority of voters rejected PA 520 and PA 21. Regardless, PA 281, which included the voter-rejected designation of the wolf as a game species, was signed into law and the NRC designated wolves as a game species effective March 2015. Following this, plaintiff filed the underlying complaint that challenged the constitutionality of PA 281, specifically that it violated the Title–Object Clause of Michigan's Constitution, Const 1963, art 4, § 24, which states that (1) a law must not embrace more than one object, and (2) the object of the law must be expressed in its title. The Court of Claims granted defendants' summary disposition motion, holding the the general purpose of PA 281 is to “manage fish, wildlife, and their habitats” and that all of the law's provisions relate to this purpose, and concluded that the law did not violate the single-object requirement of the Title–Object Clause. The Court of Appeals found that some provisions of PA 281 did not violate the Title-Object Clause including (1) free licenses to military and (2) appropriating $1 million to respond to the threat of invasive fish species. However, the court did find that the free licenses to members of the military has no necessary connection to the scientific management of fish, wildlife, and their habitats violating the single-object rule of the Title-Object Clause. While the court noted that there is a severability option with provisions of laws that violate the Title-Object Clause, the court cannot conclude the Legislature would have passed PA 281 without the provision allowing free hunting, trapping, and fishing licenses for active members of the military. Thus, this provision cannot be severed from PA 281, and, consequently, the court found PA 281 is unconstitutional. The court noted that its decision rests solely under an analysis of the Michigan Constitution and related cases. However, the court noted that plaintiff's assertion that the initiating petition by defendant put "curb appeal" of free military licenses and invasive species control to "surreptitiously" reenact a provision that would ensure wolves would be on the game species list was an "accurate" assessment. The court even said that PA 281 "conjures up images of a Trojan Horse, within which the ability to hunt wolves was cleverly hidden." The order granting summary judgment for defendants was reversed and the matter was remanded.||Case|
|OK - Dog bite - Oklahoma Dog Bite Laws||4 Okl. St. Ann. § 41 - 47||OK ST T. 4 § 41 - 47||These statutes comprise Oklahoma's Dangerous Dog Laws. The state imposes strict liability for dog bites; "the owner or owners of any dog shall be liable for damages to the full amount of any damages sustained when his dog, without provocation, bites or injures any person while such person is in or on a place where he has a lawful right to be." Further, any person may lawfully kill a dog who is chasing that person's livestock. An owner of a dog that has been adjudged "dangerous" must register the dog, enclose the dog except when out on a leash with muzzle, and post $50,000 in liability insurance. An owner who does not follow the provisions not only faces the confiscation of his or her dog, but may also be subject to a one-year misdemeanor.||Statute|
|MN - Dog - Consolidated Dog Laws||M. S. A. 35.67 - 71; 97A.321, 97B.001 - 621; 135A.191; 325F.79-792; 346.01-58; 347.01-56; 365.10; 366.01; § 609.226||MN ST 35.67 - 71; 97A.321, 97B.001 - 621; 135A.191; 325F.79-792; 346.01-58; 347.01-56; 365.10; 366.01||These statutes comprise Minnesota's relevant dog laws. Among the provisions include several laws related to natural resources protection and hunting with dogs, the sale of dogs, and laws related to damage done by dogs.||Statute|
|Zageris v. Whitehall||594 N.E.2d 129 (Ohio App. 10 Dist.,1991)||72 Ohio App.3d 178||
The single-family residence property owner and owner of dogs kept on property filed suit for declaratory judgment, petition for habeas corpus, and civil rights claims against city based on city's enforcement of ordinance prohibiting number of dogs on property. He then appealed the ruling in favor for the city. The Ohio Court of Appeals held that the local ordinance limiting number of dogs on single family property was a nuisance and not zoning measure and consequently a valid exercise of city's police power.