Results
| Title | Citation | Alternate Citation | Agency Citation | Summary | Type |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Two night monkeys are sitting on top of a soiled corrugated pipe serving as a nest | Slideshow Images | ||||
| Steagald v. Eason | 797 S.E.2d 838 (2017) | 300 Ga. 717, 2017 WL 875038 (Ga., 2017) |
In this case, Gary and Lori Steagald sued the Eason family, alleging that the Easons failed to keep their dog properly restrained and were therefore liable under OCGA § 51-2-7. Lori Steagald suffered injuries after the Easons dog attacked her while she was visiting the Easons home. The Easons filed a motion for summary judgment on the basis that they had no reason to know that the dog was vicious or dangerous and therefore were not liable under the statute. Both the trial court and Court of Appeals affirmed the motion for summary judgment. On appeal, the Supreme Court of Georgia reversed the lower court’s decision. Ultimately, the Supreme Court of Georgia found that the Eason family was liable under the statute because they did have reason to believe that the dog could potentially be vicious or dangerous. The Court focused on the fact that the dog had previously “growled and snapped” at the Easons while being fed. The Court held that although the dog had never bit anyone prior to Lori Steagald, it was reasonable to assume that the dog could potentially bite and injure someone given the fact that it had a history of snapping and growling. As a result, the Court reversed the Easons motion for summary judgment and determined that the question of whether or not the Easons are liable under the statute is a question for the jury. |
Case | |
| WV - Hunting, Internet - § 20-2-5. Unlawful methods of hunting and fishing and other unlawful acts. | W. Va. Code Ann. § 20-2-5 | W. Va. Code Ann. § 20-2-5 (West) | This statute prohibits unlawful hunting in the state of West Virginia. Subsection (a)(27) effectively serves as the remote hunting ban. It is unlawful for any person to "[h]unt or conduct hunts for a fee when the person is not physically present in the same location as the wildlife being hunted within West Virginia." The statute (subsection (5)) also prohibits hunting by airplane or other airborne conveyance or by "a drone or other unmanned aircraft." Subsection (12) prohibits hunting by use of a ferret. | Statute | |
| Rosenfeld v. Zoning Bd. of Appeals of Mendon | 940 N.E.2d 891 (Ma. App., 2011) | 78 Mass.App.Ct. 677 (2011); 2011 WL 242734 (Ma. App., 2011) |
A zoning board granted landowner’s application for a special permit, and neighbor property owners appealed. The Appeals Court of Massachusetts held that defendant’s proposed use of land for horse stables fit within the agricultural use exception of the zoning ordinance and by-laws, and that plaintiffs had standing to enforce a deed restriction on defendant’s property. |
Case | |
| Defenders of Wildlife v. Hall | 807 F.Supp.2d 972 (D.Mont., 2011) | 2011 WL 3359937 (D.Mont.) |
Several wildlife organizations filed suit to challenge the FWS's Final Rule delisting the gray wolf Northern Rocky Mountain distinct population segment. The case was put on hold pending the outcome of several other legal battles regarding the wolf's status on the Endangered Species List, during which gray wolf protections were reinstated. Then, after Congress passed the 2011 fiscal year budget which contained a provision requiring the FWS to delist the Northern Rocky Mountain DPS, the court dismissed the case for lack of jurisdiction. |
Case | |
| LA - Veterinarian Immnity - Chapter 20. Miscellaneous Provisions Common to Certain Professions. | LA R.S. 37:1731 | This law reflects Louisiana's good Samaritan provision. Under the law, a licensed veterinarian licensed under who in good faith gratuitously (without payment) renders emergency care or services or assistance at the scene of an emergency to an animal is not liable for any civil damages as a result of any act or omission in rendering the care or services or assistance. | Statute | ||
| DE - Cruelty - Consolidated Cruelty Statutes | 11 Del.C. § 1325 - 1327;16 Del.C. § 3001F - 3009F; 16 Del.C. § 3031F - 3036F; 11 Del.C. § 775 | DE ST TI 11 § 1325 - 1327; DE ST TI 16 § 3001F- 3009F; DE ST TI 16 § 3031F - 3036F; DE ST TI 11 § 775 | These Delaware sections comprise the state's anti-cruelty and animal fighting provisions. Delaware's anti-cruelty section provides that cruelty to animals is when a person intentionally or recklessly subjects any animal (excluding fish, crustacea or molluska) to cruel mistreatment, cruel neglect, or kills or injures any animal belonging to another person. Actively engaging in animal fighting activities is a class F felony while being a spectator at a fight is a class A misdemeanor. | Statute | |
| US - AWA - Animal Welfare; Definition of Animal | 2004 WL 1217239 (F.R.) | The update to the Definition of Animal, in Section 1.1 of the Regulation, is simply made to make the definition of animal in the regulations more similar to that in the AWA. The main change relates to mice, rats, and birds. The definition in the Regulation has excluded mice and rats used for research, and all birds. With this amendment, only birds that are bred or used for the purpose of research will be excluded. | Administrative | ||
| Ley Federal Apícola de Mexico | Ley Federal Apícola de Mexico, OFICIO No.: D.G.P.L. 64-Il-6-2694. EXPEDIENTE No. 6197. | It serves as a comprehensive framework for treating and protecting bees, encompassing all activities related to this vital species, explicitly designating apiculture (or beekeeping) as a prioritized activity of public interest. The objectives of this law extend beyond the aforementioned points: 1) Recognizing Bees as Priority Species: The law aims to acknowledge bees as a species of paramount importance in biodiversity preservation, highlighting the need for their protection; 2) Promoting Education and Awareness: An essential aspect of this legislation is promoting education and awareness regarding the importance of respecting, caring for, protecting, conserving, and fostering a deep appreciation for bees; 3) Equal Status with Livestock: The law seeks to elevate their status to the same level as cattle. Consequently, stealing bees would be considered a rustling crime under the Federal Penal Code; and 4) Recognizing Honey's Nutritional Value: The law also aims to establish honey as a perfect food, recognizing its exceptional nutritional properties. It advocates for honey to be considered an essential component of a balanced diet to safeguard the health of society. Furthermore, this law contains provisions to enhance the regulation and support of apiculture, including the rights and obligations of beekeepers; it creates the National Council of the Beekeeping Product System, outlines the responsibilities and attributions of relevant authorities, and sets forth specific standards, reporting procedures, and licensing requirements for various aspects of beekeeping, including the establishment of apiaries, the movement of hives or their products, and other relevant activities. | Statute | ||
| Ranwez v. Roberts | 601 S.E.2d 449 (Ga. 2004) | 268 Ga.App. 80 (Ga. 2004) |
Plaintiff brought claims against her tenant neighbor and the property owner after she was viciously attacked by her tenant neighbor's four pit bulls. The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of the property owner. The Court of Appeals affirmed the decision holding the property owner was an out-of -possession landlord. |
Case |