Results
| Title | Citation | Alternate Citation | Agency Citation | Summary | Type |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| OK - Rehabilitation, wildlife - Chapter 25 Wildlife Rules | OK ADC 800:25-38-1 to 12 | Okla. Admin. Code 800:25-38-1 to 12 | The following Oklahoma regulations detail that a license is needed for any person who wishes to rehabilitate wildlife. A person must renew this license annually for a fee of ten (10) dollars unless that person has violated any of these provisions or was found not to be taking proper care of the animal during the animal's rehabilitation. In such a case, a person must wait a minimum of one year before that person can renew his or her license. These regulations also relieve the Department of Wildlife from liability and costs incurred by the licensee. Additionally, these regulations require a licensee to report any listed endangered or threatened species; require a record of veterinary visits; require a record of the type of species lodged at the facility; require proper facilities; and require proper release of rehabilitated animals and proper disposal of animals that cannot be rehabilitated. | Administrative | |
| Julie Marie Grizzel v. James William Hickey d/b/a S & S Farms; Ron Lee Omara and S & S Farms, Inc. aka S.S. Farms Linn County, I |
The plaintiff in this Oregon case brought an action alleging negligence and intentional infliction of emotional distress against the defendant, who was a licensed animal dealer. Plaintiff owned “My Girl,” a purebred cocker spaniel, whom plaintiff cared for and enclosed in a secure, fenced backyard. While My Girl was secure in her backyard, two other individuals seized her and transported her to defendant Hickey (who was known to be engaged in the business of selling animals to research laboratories). |
Pleading | |||
| Natural Resources Defense Council v. Evans | 232 F. Supp. 2d 1003 (N.D. Cal. 2002) |
Plaintiffs, various environmental organizations and a concerned individual, sought a preliminary injunction against federal officials to prevent the United States Navy's peacetime use of a low frequency sonar system for training, testing and routine operations. The defendants temporarily enjoined from deploying Low Frequency Active Sonar until a carefully tailored preliminary injunction can be issued which would permit the use of Low Frequency Active Sonar for testing and training in a variety of ocean conditions, but would provide additional safeguards to reduce the risk to marine mammals and endangered species. |
Case | ||
| Animal Law Index Volume 21, Part 2 |
Animal Law Index Volume 21, Part 2ARTICLESTHE KENTUCKY HORSE: THE REALITY VS. THE MYTH AND WHAT COULD BE DONE TO CLOSE THE GAP |
Policy | |||
| WA - Rehabilitation - 77.15.800. Engaging in wildlife rehabilitation without a permit--Penalty | West's RCWA 77.15.800 | This Washington law provides that a person is guilty of guilty of engaging in wildlife rehabilitation without a permit if the person captures, transports, treats, feeds, houses, conditions, or trains injured, diseased, oiled, or abandoned wildlife without department authority for temporary actions or a wildlife rehabilitation permit issued by the department. A violation of this section is a misdemeanor. | Statute | ||
| Gannon v. Conti | 86 A.D.3d 704 (N.Y.A.D. 3 Dept.,2011) | 2011 WL 2637562 (N.Y.A.D. 3 Dept.,2011); 926 N.Y.S.2d 739 (2011) |
In 2008, defendants' dog allegedly left their yard by passing through an underground "invisible" electrical fence system and bit the plaintiff who was sitting on her bike on the adjacent property. Plaintiff filed suit seeking damages for injury based on common-law negligence and strict liability. The lower court granted defendants' motion for summary judgment based on the fact that they had no prior knowledge of the dog's alleged vicious propensities. On appeal, the court found that even defendants' own depositions raised an issue of fact as to notice of their dog's alleged vicious propensities. Specifically, one defendant admitted he used a "bite sleeve" obtained through his employment as a police officer to encourage the dog to bite and hold a perpetrator's arm. This evidence that the dog was encouraged to leap up and bite a human arm created a sufficient issue of fact for the jury despite defendants' claim that this was a "play activity" for the dog. |
Case | |
| City of Rolling Meadows v. Kyle | 494 N.E.2d 766 (Ill.App. 1 Dist.,1986) | 145 Ill.App.3d 168, 98 Ill.Dec. 644 (Ill.App. 1 Dist.,1986) |
In this Illinois case, the Plaintiff, City of Rolling Meadows, brought an action against defendant for keeping an undomesticated animal, a monkey, in her home in violation of a city ordinance. The lower court entered judgment in favor of plaintiff. At issue on appeal is the construction and application to be given the phrase “other than domesticated house pets” as set forth in the ordinance in question. The court was required to adopt the common and approved usage of the term 'domesticated.' The court concluded that the evidence presented established as a matter of law that Yondi is a domesticated animal. Thus, the trial court erred in finding defendant in violation of ordinance 4-28 because the monkey was a domesticated house pet. |
Case | |
| VA - Ordinances - § 3.2-6539. Ordinance requiring dogs to be kept on leash | Va. Code Ann. § 3.2-6539 | VA ST § 3.2-6539 | This Virginia statute provides that the governing body of any city may adopt regulations or ordinances requiring that dogs to be kept on a leash or otherwise restrained and may request the court to order a referendum as to whether any such ordinance so adopted shall become effective in the city. The results of the referendum shall not be binding upon the governing body of any such city but may be used in ascertaining the sense of the voters. | Statute | |
| OH - Exotic - Chapter 935. Dangerous Wild Animals and Restricted Snakes | R.C. § 935.01 - .99 | OH ST § 935.01 - .99 | On June 5, 2012, Ohio governor Kasich signed the "Dangerous Wild Animal Act" into law. Under this new section, no person shall possess a dangerous wild animal on or after January 1, 2014 unless he or she is authorized under an unexpired wildlife shelter/propagation permit or other exception. Dangerous wild animals include big cats, some smaller exotic cats, bears, elephants, hyenas, gray wolves, alligators, crocodiles and nonhuman primates other than lemurs. Except as provided, no person shall acquire, buy, sell, trade, or transfer possession or ownership of a dangerous wild animal on or after the effective date of this section. | Statute | |
| MO - Springfield - Breed - Prohibition of pit bull dogs. | SPRINGFIELD, MO., CODE OF ORDINANCES §§ 18-95 - 18-98 (2011) |
In Springfield, Missouri, it is unlawful to own, possess, keep, exercise control over, maintain, harbor, transport, or sell any pit bull, with exceptions made for animal shelters, dog shows, dog groomers, and registered dogs. The owner must sterilize the dog, keep it properly confined, and post “Pit Bull Dog” signs. Failure to comply could result in impoundment and destruction of the dog. |
Local Ordinance |