Results
| Title | Citation | Alternate Citation | Agency Citation | Summary | Type |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| VA - Exotic Pets - Article 11. Hybrid Canines | Va. Code Ann. § 3.2-6581 - 6584 | VA ST § 3.2-6581 - 6584 | This section provides Virginia's hybrid canine laws (registered or described to a veterinarian, animal control, or other listed authority as a wolf or coyote-dog cross) Under the section, any locality may, by ordinance, establish a permit system to ensure the adequate confinement and responsible ownership of hybrid canines. Violation of an ordinance enacted pursuant to this section is a Class 3 misdemeanor for the first violation and a Class 1 misdemeanor for any subsequent violation. Further, it is the duty of any animal control officer or other officer who may find a hybrid canine in the act of killing or injuring livestock or poultry to kill such hybrid canine forthwith, whether such hybrid canine bears a tag or not. | Statute | |
| OK - Assistance Animals - Assistance Animal/Guide Dog Laws | 4 Okl. St. Ann. § 801; 7 Okl. St. Ann. § 12 - 13; Okl. St. Ann. § 19.1 - 19.2; 21 Okl. St. Ann. § 649.3; 25 Okl. St. Ann. § 1452; 41 Okl. St. Ann. § 113.1; 41 Okl. St. Ann. § 113.2 | OK ST T. 7 § 12 - 13; OK ST T. 7 § 19.1 - 19.2; OK ST T. 21 § 649.3; OK ST T. 25 § 1452; OK ST T. 41 § 113.1; OK ST T. 41 § 113.2 | The following statutes comprise the state's relevant assistance animal and guide dog laws. | Statute | |
| GOODWIN v. E. B. NELSON GROCERY CO. | 132 N.E. 51 (Mass. 1921) | 239 Mass. 232 (1921) |
Plaintiff brought her dog into a store. The dog fought with the store owner's cat. After the fight was over, and the animals were calm, plaintiff reached down and grabbed the cat's front paw. The cat scratched and bit plaintiff, who brought a negligence action against the store owner. The court held that plaintiff could not recover because plaintiff did not exercise due care when she interfered with a strange animal, and there was no evidence that the cat was vicious. |
Case | |
| People v. Beauvil | 2008 WL 2685893; 872 N.Y.S.2d 692 (Table), (N.Y.Just.Ct.,2008) | 20 Misc.3d 1116(A); 2008 WL 2685893; 2008 N.Y. Slip Op. 51370(U) |
This New York case came before this Court after the District Attorney refused to prosecute the case. The complaintant alleged that on April 16, 2008, he was walking down a public sidewalk when a loose dog, later identified as belonging to the defendants, ran up to and bit the complainant on the hand. Police were contacted and a complaint was made to the Village of Westbury Attorney who then advised the complainant to file a formal complaint with the Nassau County District Attorney's office. The District Attorney's office declined to prosecute and instead suggested that the Village handle the matter. This Court held that it has no jurisdiction to hear the misdemeanor charge stemming from the violation of Agriculture & Markets Law § 121 (but then did list the other avenues available for the complaintant). This Court, sua sponte, also held that the Agriculture & Markets Law § 121, as applied to Nassau County Village Justice Courts, is unconstitutional. This was due to the fact that Village Courts have no jurisdiction (or ability, as pointed out by the court) to hear misdemeanors. |
Case | |
| US - Eagles - § 83.7 Mandatory criteria for Federal acknowledgment. | 67 FR 44347 |
[Regulation removed 2010. Summary of former text provided.] This provision describes the mandatory criteria for establishing the existence of an American Indian tribe for purposes of recognition by the federal government. These criteria implicate federal status for purposes of acquiring eagle parts for use in Indian religious ceremonies under the BGEPA. |
Administrative | ||
| Argentina - Wildlife - Ley 22.421, 1981 | LEY Nº 22.421 | Ley 22.421 is the the law for the protection of wild fauna. It regulates conservation and the use of the wild fauna in Argentina. This law establishes that the protection of wild fauna is of public interest and therefore all the citizens have the duty to protect it. When a person resulted harmed when executing this duty, they can seek administrative compensation. Article 3 establishes what animals are considered wild fauna, wild animals, wild animals that live under the control of humans, in natural or artificial environments, and domestic animals that, for any reason, return to the wild. Wildlife are deemed to be part of this category in terms of this law, with exception of the animals subject to fishing laws. Other matters regulated by this law include national and international trade and transportation of wild fauna, protection of the environment, hunting and its requirements, and the responsibilities of the authorities in prosecuting crimes and imposing penalties. | Statute | ||
| State v. Wright | 393 P.3d 1192 (Or.App.,2017) | 284 Or.App. 641, 2017 WL 1245397 (2017) | Defendant was convicted of four counts of aggravated animal abuse in the first degree after he drowned all six cats that lived with him in a water-filled trash can. On appeal, defendant challenged the exclusion of evidence that he had an intellectual disability and that he had a character for gentleness toward animals. Defendant asserts such evidence would have shown he did not act with the requisite malicious intent that the state was was required to prove. It would have been relevant in demonstrating his mental state when committing the offenses, according to defendant. The appellate court found that the lower court did not err with regard to excluding defendant's reference to an intellectual disability. The testimony at trial describing his "intellectual disability" was more of a general reference and not relevant to his mental state. On the issue of character evidence of defendant's gentleness toward animals, the appellate assumed the lower court erred because the state conceded it was harmless error in its brief. In agreeing with the state that the error was harmless, the court found any further evidence would have been cumulative because other testimony spoke to defendant's gentle character toward animals. The matter was remanded for resentencing due to errors in sentencing. | Case | |
| TN - Endangered Species - Nongame and Endangered or Threatened Wildlife Species Conservation Act of 1974 | T. C. A. § 70-8-101 to 112 | TN ST § 70-8-101 to 112 | These Tennessee statutes comprise the Tennessee Nongame and Endangered or Threatened Wildlife Species Conservation Act of 1974 and includes the legislative intent, definitions, and factors relevant to endangered species investigations. By statute, it is unlawful for any person to take, attempt to take, possess, transport, export, process, sell or offer for sale or ship nongame wildlife, or for any common or contract carrier knowingly to transport or receive for shipment nongame wildlife. Violation constitutes a Class B misdemeanor and incurs warrantless searches and seizure of the wildlife taken and the instrumentalities used in the taking. | Statute | |
| NH - Licenses - Chapter 466. Dogs and Cats. | N.H. Rev. Stat. § 466:30-a | NH ST § 466:30-a | This New Hampshire law provides that it is unlawful for any dog to run at large. "At large" is defined as "off the premises of the owner or keeper and not under the control of any person by means of personal presence and attention as will reasonably control the conduct of such dog, unless accompanied by the owner or custodian." Any authorized person may seize such at large dogs. | Statute | |
| Vavrecka v. State | 2009 WL 179203, 4 (Tex.App.-Hous. (Tex.App.-Houston [14 Dist.],2009). |
Defendant appealed a conviction for cruelty to animals after several dogs that appeared malnourished and emaciated with no visible food or water nearby were found on Defendant’s property by a police officer and an Animal Control officer. The Court of Appeals of Texas, Houston, 14th District confirmed the conviction, finding that Defendant waived any error with respect to her motion to suppress evidence by affirmatively stating at trial that Defendant had “no objection” to the admission of evidence. Finally, the Court’s denial of Defendant’s request to show evidence of Defendant’s past practice and routine of caring for stray animals and nursing them to health did not deprive Defendant of a complete defense. |
Case |