Results
Displaying 6131 - 6140 of 6637
| Title | Citation | Alternate Citation | Summary | Type |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| MI - Running at Large - Chapter 433. Animals Running at Large. | M.C.L.A. 433.11 - 20 | Mich. Comp. Laws Ann. § 433.11 - 20 | This chapter of Michigan laws deals with animals running at large. In Michigan, an owner cannot allow an animal (defined here as cattle, horses, sheep, swine, mules, burros, or goats) to run at large. In addition, a person that is not the owner of the animal cannot willfully and knowingly allow the animal to run at large. Any person who allows an animal to run at large will be guilty of a misdemeanor. Law enforcement is authorized to take possession of any animal that is running at large. Once the animal is in possession of law enforcement, the owner of the animal must be notified or a notice must be placed in the newspaper within 30 days. | Statute |
| OH - Lien, care - 1311.48 Lien for care of animals | R.C. § 1311.48 - 54 | OH ST § 1311.48 - 54 | This Ohio law states that any person who feeds or boards an animal under contract with the owner shall have a lien on such animal to secure payment for food and board furnished. | Statute |
| 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 |
| Birmingham Humane Society v. Dickson | 661 So.2d 759 (Ala.,1994) |
The owner of a lost dog found the dog in an animal shelter and asked for its return. The shelter gave it back but sterilized it first despite the owner's wishes that it not be sterilized. The court held the shelter owed a duty to give the dog back without sterilizing it and affirmed a finding of negligence. |
Case | |
| US - Sharks - Chapter 38. Fishery Conservation and Management | 16 U.S.C.A. § 1857 | The Shark Conservation Act of 2010 amended Sec. 1857 of the Magnuson Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act. The amendment effectively closed a loophole that allowed vessels to transport illegally obtained shark fins so long as no sharks were finned aboard the vessel. The act makes it illegal to remove any of the fins of a shark (including the tail) at sea; to have custody, control, or possession of any such fin aboard a fishing vessel unless it is naturally attached to the corresponding carcass; to transfer any such fin from one vessel to another vessel at sea, or to receive any such fin in such transfer, without the fin naturally attached to the corresponding carcass; or to land any such fin that is not naturally attached to the corresponding carcass, or to land any shark carcass without such fins naturally attached. Essentially, all sharks must be brought aboard with their fins attached. There is a rebuttable presumption under the Act that if any shark fin (including the tail) is found aboard a vessel, other than a fishing vessel, without being naturally attached to the corresponding carcass, such fin was transferred in violation of the Act. | Statute | |
| AL - Hunting - Article 8A. Interference with Legal Hunting or Fishing. | Ala. Code 1975 § 9-11-270 - 275 | AL ST § 9-11-270 to 275 | This section of law reflects Alabama's hunter harassment provisions. Under the section, no person shall willfully and knowingly prevent, obstruct, impede, disturb, or interfere with, or attempt to prevent, obstruct, impede, disturb, or interfere with any person who is legally hunting or fishing. Prohibited activities include creating a visual, aural, olfactory, or physical stimulus intended to affect the natural behavior of the wild animal being hunted or fish for the purpose of fishing, or affecting the condition or location of personal property intended for use in the hunting or fishing. Any person violating this article is guilty of a Class C misdemeanor. | Statute |
| Brown v. Kemp | 86 F.4th 745 (7th Cir. 2023) | 2023 WL 7489920 (C.A.7 (Wis.), 2023) | This is a case brought by a group of hunting opponents against Wisconsin state employees to challenge Wisconsin’s hunter harassment statute. The challenged statute criminalizes those who photograph or videotape hunting activities with intent to interfere with the hunting. The challengers, who intended to use the footage to spur public debate about hunting and ensure hunters are following state taking limits, allege that the law violates the First Amendment and is unconstitutionally vague. The trial court granted summary judgment to the state employees after finding that the statute did not violate the First Amendment, and the hunting opponents appealed. On appeal, the court found that the statutory provisions on visual/physical proximity and approaching/confronting hunters were unconstitutionally vague, the photographing/recording provision was unconstitutionally overbroad, and the entire statute was an unconstitutional viewpoint-based regulation of speech. | Case |
| IN - Cattle Slaughter - JAMMU & KASHMIR CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISIONS ON COW SLAUGHTER | 12 of 1989 | The Jammu & Kashmir Ranbir Penal Code, 1989, prohibits the slaughter of bovines (oxes, bulls, cows and calves). Persons may not keep in their possession the flesh of slaughtered bovines. The provisions criminalize the sale and possession of the untanned hide, meat or flesh of gonds or possesses the carcass of a gond. | Statute | |
| Center For Biological Diversity v. Scarlett | 452 F.Supp.2d 966 (N.D.Cal., 2006) | 2006 WL 2811997 (N.D.Cal.) |
Plaintiffs Center for Biological Diversity, Sierra Nevada Forest Protection Campaign, Sierra Club, John Muir Project, Natural Resources Defense Council and Defenders of Wildlife move for an award of attorney fees and costs pursuant to § 11(g)(4) of the Endangered Species Act (ESA), 16 USC § 1540(g)(4), in connection with their efforts to have the California spotted owl listed as endangered. The Court denied the Center's motion for attorney fees because they failed to realize the goals of their lawsuit. |
Case |
| CA - Service Animal - § 600. Horses or dogs used by peace officers or volunteers; | West's Ann. Cal. Penal Code § 600 | CA PENAL § 600 | This statute makes it an offense to willfully, maliciously and with no legal justification harm, injure, obstruct, or interfere with a horse or dog under the supervision of law enforcement in the discharge of official duties or a volunteer under the direct supervision of a peace officer. Violations are punishable by a fine and/or imprisonment. Punishment depends on the seriousness of the injury to the animal. Upon conviction, a defendant must also pay restitution for damages. | Statute |