Results
| Title | Citation | Alternate Citation | Summary | Type |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| KY - Ordinances - CHAPTER 258. DOGS. | KRS § 258.365 | KY ST § 258.365 | This Kentucky statute provides that nothing in this chapter related to state regulation of dogs shall be construed to prohibit or limit the right of any city to pass or enforce any ordinance with respect to the regulation of dogs, the provisions of which are not inconsistent with the provisions of this chapter. | Statute |
| Haefele v. Commonwealth | 878 S.E.2d 422 (2022) | 75 Va.App. 591 (Va.App., 2022) | Defendant Haefele was convicted of two counts of maliciously maiming the livestock of another, in violation of Code § 18.2-144, and two counts of conspiring to maliciously maim the livestock of another. The killing occurred in 2020. Defendant's neighbor possessed two goats on her property in Spotsylvania County and received several complaints. Ultimately, the code enforcement officer instructed the neighbor to remove the goats and even offered assistance in relocating them. However, about a month after this order, Defendant and two other men entered the neighbor's goat pen with the neighbor's permission and killed the goats with “what looked like a two-by-four with spikes wrapped around it." After investigation and review of video footage taken of the attack, Defendant and the two others were charged and convicted by bench trial in 2021. Testimony by an expert in veterinary pathology revealed that the animals suffered before they died. On appeal here, Defendant contends that he could not be convicted under Code § 18.2-144 “because the defendant [Haefele] was acting with the permission of, and in concert with, the owner of the animals in question.” The court disagreed, finding no language in the statute that limits the statute only to acts that were against the will of the owner. Defendant also claims he did not act with requisite malice because the “the owner of the goats had given him permission to act against the goats." Again, the court recounted the brutal and repeated acts against the goats that occurred over a ten-minute span. Thus, the evidence showed that Defendant acted with sufficiently demonstrated malice. While livestock owners can ask others to euthanize or properly slaughter their livestock, the manner in which Defendant caused the goats' deaths clearly demonstrated malicious intent. Thus, the trial court did not err in convicting Defendant under Code § 18.2-144 and the matter was affirmed and remanded. | Case |
| FL - Police dog - 843.19. Offenses against police canines, fire canines, SAR canines, or police horses | West's F. S. A. § 843.19 | FL ST § 843.19 | This law makes it a felony of the second degree to intentionally and knowingly, without lawful cause or justification, causes great bodily harm, permanent disability, or death to, or uses a deadly weapon upon, a police canine, fire canine, SAR canine, or police horse. Further, any person who actually and intentionally maliciously touches, strikes, or causes bodily harm to a police canine, fire canine, SAR canine, or police horse commits a misdemeanor of the first degree, Any person who intentionally or knowingly maliciously harasses, teases, interferes with, or attempts to interfere with a police canine, fire canine, SAR canine, or police horse while the animal is in the performance of its duties commits a misdemeanor of the second degree. | Statute |
| South Africa - Endangered Species - List of Endangered Species | This is the published list of all the critically endangered, endangered, vulnerable and protected species under South Africa's National Environmental Management: Biodiversity Act, 2004 (Act No. 10 of 2004). | Statute | ||
| Davert v. Larson | 209 Cal.Rptr. 445 (1985) |
On April 6, 1982, plaintiffs sued defendant Thomas Larson and others owned by defendant and others as tenants in common, for damages for negligence after plaintiffs' automobile collided with a horse. On October 21, 1983, the trial court granted defendant's motion for summary judgment finding he owed no duty of care to plaintiffs as a landowner because his 1/2500th interest in the property was small and he exercised no control over the management of the property. The Court of Appeal reversed , holding that tenants in common of real property who delegate the control and management of the property to a separate legal entity should not be immunized from liability to third parties in the case of common area torts. The Court found that it was clear that considerations of public policy require that any departure from the common law rule of liability of individual owners of property in common cannot operate to the substantial detriment of third parties. |
Case | |
| CO - Aurora - Chapter 14 - ANIMALS | Chapter 14. Sec. 14-1 to 14-161 | The following comprises Aurora, Colorado's animal-related ordinances. In addition to the standard ordinances dealing with number restrictions, at-large animals, barking dogs, and licensing, the city has two important provisions. First, the city makes it unlawful to own, possess or keep any dog, rabbit, or cat over the age of 6 months that has not been spayed or neutered (subject to some exceptions). Second, it is unlawful for any person to have, own, possess, keep, exercise control over, maintain, harbor, transport, or sell within the city any pit bull or restricted breed of dog. "Restricted breeds" include any American Bulldog (Old Country Bulldog), Dogo Argentino, Canary Dog (Canary Island Dog, Presa Canario, Perro De Presa Canario), Presa Mallorquin (Pero De Presa Mallorquin, Ca De Bou), Tosa Inu (Tosa Fighting Dog, Japanese Fighting Dog, Japanese Mastiff), Cane Corso (Cane Di Macellaio, Sicilian Branchiero), Fila Brasileiro or any dog displaying the majority of physical traits of any one or more of the above breeds. | Local Ordinance | |
| MN - Exotic pet - 346.155. Possessing regulated animals | M. S. A. § 346.155 | MN ST § 346.155 | This Minnesota law defines "regulated animal" to mean all members of the Felidae family except the domestic cat, bears, and all non-human primates. Unless a person possessed a regulated animal on or before January 1, 2005, and came into compliance with AWA regulations, possession of the above-mentioned regulated animals is unlawful. A person who lawfully possessed a regulated animal before that date, must comply with registration, microchipping, fee, and inspection requirements. | Statute |
| HI - Domestic Violence - Chapter 586. Domestic Abuse Protective Orders | H R S § 586-4 | HI ST § 586-4 | This law reflects Hawaii's provision for temporary restraining orders in cases of domestic abuse. The ex parte temporary restraining order may also enjoin or restrain both of the parties from taking, concealing, removing, threatening, physically abusing, or otherwise disposing of any animal identified to the court as belonging to a household, until further order of the court (see (c)(4)). | Statute |
| Journal of Animal and Natural Resource Law, Vol. 15 |
Published by the students of Michigan State University College of Law Journal of Animal & Natural Resource LawVol. |
Policy | ||
| R. v. McConkey | 2008 CarswellAlta 156 | 2008 ABPC 37, [2008] A.W.L.D. 3238, 438 A.R. 87 |
In this case, the defendants pleaded guilty to violations of the Animal Protection Act after a peace officer for the humane society found four dogs in distress due mainly to a lack of grooming. On appeal, the defendants did not contest the amount of the fines, but suggested that the court should consider the economic status of the defendants (both were on government assistance). The court found that the conduct of the defendant and the level of the distress experienced by the dogs over a long period of time was an aggravating factor in determining the fine. With regard to a Section 12(2) prohibition to restrain future animal ownership, the court was reluctant to inflict stress on the animals still residing at the home by removing them from their long-time home. |
Case |