Results
| Title | Citation | Alternate Citation | Summary | Type | ||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| IN - Wild Animal - Chapter 28. Permit to Take, Kill, or Capture Wild Animal Damaging Property | I.C. 14-22-28-1 - 5 | IN ST 14-22-28-1 to 5 | A person whose property is being damaged by a protected wild animal may be issued a free permit to take, kill, or capture the wild animal. The director prescribes how the animal is taken, when the permit expires, and the disposition of the animal. The director may deny a permit if the wild animal is not causing the damage or the person would abuse the privileges. | Statute | ||||||||
| CO - Veterinary - Veterinary Practice Code | C.R.S.A. § 12-315-101 - 210 | CO ST § 12-315-101 - 210 | These are the state's veterinary practice laws. | Statute | ||||||||
| Savory v. Hensick | 143 S.W.3d 712 (Mo. 2004) |
Contractor brought a premises liability action against homeowners after falling over their dog. Contractor was descending from a ladder while working on homeowners' premises and stepped on the dog at the base of the ladder. The trial court held in favor of the contractor because the homeowners' dog made the yard foreseeably dangerous and the appellate court affirmed. |
Case | |||||||||
| U.S. v. Cameron | 888 F.2d 1279 (9th Cir. 1989) |
Defendant was a commercial fisherman and conditionally pled guilty to unlawfully acquiring and transporting halibut with market value of more than $350 and knowingly intending to sell illegally taken halibut in violation of Lacey Act after he exceeded the catch limits set by the Pacific Halibut Act. Defendant argued that the Lacey Act criminalized the same civil conduct regulated by the Halibut Act, thereby superseding that federal statute. The court disagreed, finding that the purpose of the Lacey Act was to strengthen existing wildlife laws where the underlying law did not specify exclusive control. |
Case | |||||||||
| Derecho Animal Volume 4 Núm 3 |
|
Policy | ||||||||||
| KS - Initiatives - Amendment 1, Right to Hunt and Fish (2016) | Amendment 1 | Amendment 1 is a legislatively referred constitutional amendment in the 2016 general election. The explanatory statement on the ballot says, "This amendment is to preserve constitutionally the right of the public to hunt, fish and trap wildlife subject to reasonable laws and regulations. The right of the public to hunt, fish and trap shall not modify any provision of common law or statutes relating to trespass, eminent domain or any other private property rights." A "yes" vote would constitutionally preserve the right of the public to hunt, fish and trap wildlife that has traditionally been taken by hunters, trappers and anglers. A "no" vote would provide for no constitutional right of the public to hunt, fish and trap wildlife. It would maintain existing state laws and rules and regulations governing hunting, fishing and trapping wildlife. | Statute | |||||||||
| GA - Hunting - Chapter 3. Wildlife Generally | Ga. Code Ann., § 27-3-22 | GA ST § 27-3-22 | Georgia is unique as it prohibits the killing, possession, sale, and transporting of eagles and other migratory birds except for the transportation of feathers into the state of non-migratory birds for millinery purposes (the making of hats or headdresses). | Statute | ||||||||
| CA - Pet Sales - Chapter 5. Sale of Dogs and Cats | West's Ann. Cal. Health & Safety Code § 122045 - 122315 | CA HLTH & S §§ 122045 - 122315 | This section requires that dog breeders provide a written disclosure upon the sale of any dog with information such as the breeder’s name and address, the dog’s birth date, breed. sex, color, and vet record, and a signed statement from the breeder that the dog has no known diseases. Any breeder who knowingly sells a diseased dog faces a civil penalty. Breeders must provide dogs with sanitary housing, adequate food, water, exercise and veterinary care. | Statute | ||||||||
| McDonald v. Bauman | 433 P.2d 437 (Kan. 1967) | 199 Kan. 628 (Kan. 1967) |
This is an action for damages, both actual and punitive, wherein the plaintiff seeks to recover for the defendant's willful, wanton, malicious and cruel conduct in coming onto the plaintiff's premises, in plaintiff's absence, and in shooting and wounding plaintiff's dog in the presence of plaintiff's wife without justification or excuse and without the acquiescence or condonation of the plaintiff or his wife. A jury in the lower court acted found in favor of the defendant and the plaintiff appealed. On appeal, the Supreme Court held that evidence that the defendant caught the dog in the act of injuring his hogs, and that the defendant was in hot pursuit of the dogs, was sufficient to support the jury's verdict. |
Case | ||||||||
| IN RE: ZOOLOGICAL CONSORTIUM OF MARYLAND, INC., AND RICHARD HAHN. | 47 Agric. Dec. 1276 (1988) | 1988 WL 242939 (U.S.D.A.) | Exhibitor who engaged in recurring pattern of noncompliance with standards governing structural strength, food storage, ventilation, maintenance of facilities and enclosures, cleaning, housekeeping and interior building surfaces, but who made good faith effort to achieve compliance, is properly sanctioned with $1000 civil penalty, 20-day suspension, and cease and desist order. | Case |