Results
| Title | Citation | Alternate Citation | Agency Citation | Summary | Type |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| UT - Lien - § 38-2-1. Lien on livestock--For feed and care | U.C.A. 1953 § 38-2-1 | UT ST § 38-2-1 | Every ranchman, farmer, agistor, herder of cattle, tavern keeper or livery stable keeper to whom any domestic animals shall be entrusted for the purpose of feeding, herding or pasturing shall have a lien upon such animals for the amount that may be due him for such feeding, herding or pasturing, and is authorized to retain possession of such animals until such amount is paid. | Statute | |
| OK - Disaster Planning - Emergency Operations Plan ESF 11 | Emergency Operations Plan (EOP) | The purpose of this Emergency Support Function (ESF) #11 Annex is to coordinate State agencies, OKVOAD, Federal and other response entities in efforts to control and eradicate, as appropriate, any outbreak of a highly contagious or economically devastating animal/zoonotic (i.e. transmitted between animals and people) disease, or any outbreak of an economically devastating plant pest or disease; ensure the safety and security of the commercial food supply; protect natural resources; and provide for the safety and well-being of household pets during an emergency response or evacuation situation. [See FEMA Disaster Assistance Policy DAP9523.19 Title: “Eligible Costs Related to Pet Evacuation and Sheltering” for definition of “Household Pet”.] | Administrative | ||
| US - Marine Mammals - Taking and Importing Marine Mammals; Taking Marine Mammals Incidental | 2001 WL 929542 (F.R.) | FR Doc. 01-20647 (2001) |
NMFS, upon application from the University of California San Diego, Scripps Institution of Oceanography (Scripps), is issuing regulations to govern the unintentional take of a small number of marine mammals incidental to the continued operation of a low frequency (LF) sound source by Scripps. |
Administrative | |
| In the Matters of: Kyle C. Mueller, et al | 1991 WL 288705 (N.O.A.A.) | 6 O.R.W. 345 (1991) |
The question in this case was whether respondents, members of a marine mammal conservation group, violated the MMPA by interfering with the authorized capture of six dolphins. As result of this case, which was a civil penalty proceeding, only one of the respondents was found guilty of taking under the MMPA. The court found that the respondent's actions, although taken with noble intentions, endangered the lives of the dolphins, was improper, and dangerous. He was assessed a fine in the amount of $2,000. |
Case | |
| MI - Ordinances - CHAPTER 287. ANIMAL INDUSTRY. DOG LAW OF 1919. | M. C. L. A. 287.290 | MI ST 287.290 | This Michigan statute enables a city, village or township to adopt an animal control ordinance to regulate the licensing, payment of claims and providing for the enforcement thereof. | Statute | |
| Kautzman v. McDonald | 621 N.W.2d 871 (N.D. 2001) |
Plaintiffs sued defendants in their official capacities as law enforcement officers for shooting and killing their five dogs after the dogs escaped from plaintiffs' residence and began roaming the streets. The intentional infliction of emotional distress claim was dismissed because the court held that conduct could not reasonably be viewed as extreme and outrageous after receiving testimony that the dog were aggressive toward the officers. However, the court remanded the negligent infliction of emotional distress claim for further consideration. Plaintiffs asserted that two statutes conferred a duty upon the officers; one an anti-cruelty statute and the other a statute allowing officers to take custody of abandoned animals. |
Case | ||
| Carter v. Ide | 188 S.E.2d 275 (Ga.App. 1972) | 125 Ga.App. 557 (Ga.App. 1972) |
This Georgia case involves an action for injuries received by a boy after he was attacked by the defendant's dog. The lower court granted summary judgment to the defendant and the plaintiffs appealed. The Court of Appeals held that where there was no showing that the dog ever so much as growled at a human being before the attack, the owner of dog was not liable for injuries. Evidence that the dog previously chased a cat and had engaged in a fight with another dog was insufficient to show the owner's knowledge of the dog's vicious tendencies toward humans to create liability for the owner.
|
Case | |
| Journal of Animal and Natural Resource Law, Vol. 12 |
Published by the students of Michigan State University College of LawJournal of Animal & Natural Resource Law Vol. |
Policy | |||
| MN - Hunting, Internet - § 97B.115. Computer-assisted remote hunting prohibition | M.S.A. § 97B.115 | Minn. Stat. Ann. § 97B.115 (West) | This statute prohibits computer-assisted remote hunting within the state of Minnesota. The statute also prohibits the operation or selling of any computer software or service that allows a person to engage in computer-assisted hunting. A person who violates this section is guilty of a misdemeanor. | Statute | |
| LA - Cruelty - § 107.1. Ritualistic acts | LSA-R.S. 14:107.1 | This Louisiana law states that it is necessary for "the immediate preservation of the public peace, health, morals, safety, and welfare and for the support of state government and its existing public institutions" to ban certain ritualistic acts. With regard to animals, the law defines a "ritualistic act" to include the mutilation, dismemberment, torture, abuse, or sacrifice of animals or the ingestion of animal blood or animal waste. Any person committing, attempting to commit, or conspiring with another to commit a ritualistic act may be sentenced to imprisonment for not more than five years or fined not more than five thousand dollars, or both. | Statute |