Results
| Title | Citation | Alternate Citation | Summary | Type |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| WY - Horses - § 11-30-115. Unlawful killing of wild horses | W. S. 1977 § 11-30-115 | WY ST § 11-30-115 | This Wyoming statute provides that any person, without legal justification, who willfully and maliciously kills a wild horse is guilty of a misdemeanor punishable by a fine of not more than seven hundred fifty dollars ($750.00), imprisonment for not more than six (6), months or both. | Statute |
| SC - Trust - § 62-7-408. Trust for care of animal | Code 1976 § 62-7-408 | SC ST § 62-7-408 | South Carolina's pet trust law was originally enacted in 2006. A trust may be created to provide for the care of an animal or animals alive or in gestation during the settlor's lifetime, whether or not alive at the time the trust is created. The trust terminates upon the death of the last surviving animal. | Statute |
| City of Toledo, Appellee v. Paul Tellings, Appellant |
This Ohio case concerns a Toledo ordinance that limited the ownership of Pit Bull dogs to only one dog per household (respondent had three pit bulls). Essentially, the ordinance classifies a Pit Bull as a “vicious dog” under the vicious dog ordinance even if the dog has not engaged in aggressive or vicious behavior. The Court of Appeals for the Sixth Appellate District found that the ordinance as written was constitutionally vague. The Supreme Court overturned that decision in 2007, finding that the state and the city have a legitimate interest in protecting citizens against unsafe conditions caused by pit bulls. |
Pleading | ||
| U.S. v. Okelberry | 112 F. Supp. 2d 1246 (D. Utah 2000) |
Defense counsel not deemed ineffective for failing to advise defendant that a conviction under the BGEPA could result in loss of grazing rights. |
Case | |
| CA - Dog, collar - § 2011.5. Removal of collar from hunting dog; unlawful without written permission | West's Ann. Cal. Fish & G. Code § 2011.5 | CA FISH & G § 2011.5 | This California statute makes it unlawful to remove a hunting dog's collar without having written permission from the dog's owner. | Statute |
| NC - Initiatives - Right to Hunt and Fish Amendment | Session Law 2018 - 96 | This amendment would acknowledge the right to hunt, fish and harvest wildlife, and to use traditional methods to hunt, fish and harvest wildlife. The amendment does not define “traditional methods.” | Statute | |
| VA - Impound - § 3.2-6545. Regulation of sale of animals procured from animal shelters | Va. Code Ann. § 3.2-6545 | VA ST § 3.2-6545 | This Virginia statute provides that any city, county or town which supports an animal shelter may by ordinance provide that no person who acquires an animal from a shelter shall be able to sell such animal within a period of six months from the time the animal is acquired from the shelter. Violation of such an ordinance shall constitute a misdemeanor. | Statute |
| OH - Livestock - Chapter 904. Livestock Care Standards | R.C. § 904.01 - 904.09 | OH ST § 904.01 - 904.09 | These Ohio statutes establish the Ohio livestock care standards board and Ohio livestock care standards fund. The statutes make it illegal to falsify any plans, specifications, data, reports, records, or other information required to be kept or submitted to the director of agriculture or the board. | Statute |
| MO - Independence - Breed - Sec. 3.03.006. Keeping of Pit Bulls Prohibited | INDEPENDENCE, MO. MUNICIPAL CODE § 3.03.006 (2006) |
The municipal code of Independence, Missouri makes it unlawful to own, possess, transport, or sell any pit bull with exceptions. However, the pit bull ban does not apply to registered show dogs that meet certain requirements or dogs whose owners have received a pit bull license on or before the date the ordinance was enacted. Requirements for ownership include an owner who is at least 18 years old, sterilization of the dog, and liability insurance of at least $300,000. Violations may result in a fine of $500, 60 days in jail, and immediate sterilization of the dog, impoundment, and disposal. |
Local Ordinance | |
| State v. Pierce | State v. Pierce, 7 Ala. 728 (1845) |
The Defendant was charge with cruelty to animals for the killing of a certain spotted bull, belonging some person to the jurors unknow. The lower court found the Defendant guilty. The Defendant then appealed to the Supreme Court seeking review of whether the defense of provocation could be used. The Court determined the answer to be yes. Thus the Court reversed and remanded the case. |
Case |