Results
| Title | Citation | Alternate Citation | Summary | Type | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| WI - Rabies - 95.21. Rabies control program | W. S. A. 95.21 | WI ST 95.21 | Except as provided in s. 174.054 or sub. (9)(d), the owner of a dog shall have the dog vaccinated against rabies by a veterinarian or, if a veterinarian is physically present at the location the vaccine is administered, by a veterinary technician, at no later than 5 months of age and revaccinated within one year after the initial vaccination. The owner of a dog shall have the dog revaccinated against rabies before the date that the immunization expires as stated on the certificate of vaccination or, if no date is specified, within 3 years after the previous vaccination. The owner shall attach the rabies vaccination tag or a substitute tag to a collar and a collar with the tag attached shall be kept on the dog at all times. | Statute | ||||||
| Vick, Michael - Associated Materials (2007, 2008) |
The following contains links to the materials associated with Michael Vick's federal and state indictments for dogfighting. |
Pleading | ||||||||
| Frye v. County of Butte | 221 Cal.App.4th 1051 (2013), 164 Cal.Rptr.3d 928 (2013) | 13 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 12, 929, 2013 Daily Journal D.A.R. 15, 539 |
After several administrative, trial court, and appeals hearings, the California court of appeals upheld a county’s decision to seize the plaintiffs’ horses for violation of Cal. Penal Code § 597.1(f). Notably, the appeals court failed to extend the law of the case, which generally provides that a prior appellate court ruling on the law governs further proceedings in the case, to prior trial court rulings. The appeals court also held that the trial court’s "Statement of Decision" resolved all issues set before it, despite certain remedies remaining unresolved and the court’s oversight of the plaintiffs' constitutionality complaint, and was therefore an appealable judgment. The appeals court also found the trial court lacked jurisdiction to extend the appeals deadline with its document titled "Judgment." |
Case | ||||||
| UT - Ag gag - § 76-6-112. Agricultural operation interference--Penalties | U.C.A. 1953 § 76-6-112 | UT ST § 76-6-112 | This Utah law creates the crime of "agricultural operation interference ." A person commits agricultural operation interference if he or she records an image or sound from an agricultural operation by leaving a recording device without consent, obtains access to an agricultural operation under false pretenses, applies for employment with the intent to record, or without consent intentionally records the operation while committing criminal trespass. | Statute | ||||||
| Murga v. Yarusso | 215 A.D.3d 979, 187 N.Y.S.3d 762 (2023) | No. 2021-00173, 605534/18, 187 N.Y.S.3d 762, 2023 N.Y. Slip Op. 02130, 2023 WL 3083108 (N.Y.A.D. 2 Dept., Apr. 26, 2023) | This New York case involved action to recover damages for personal injuries sustained after defendant's dog allegedly ran into street and pushed the plaintiff pedestrian to the ground. The plaintiff described the dog as acting like a "big puppy" and the dog did not bite the plaintiff. In contrast, the defendant testified that the dog was chasing a ball in the defendant's front yard and did not actually go in the street. Rather, defendant asserts that plaintiff tripped upon seeing the dog in the yard. The complaint alleged that the defendant was negligent in failing to keep the dog under control and to take protective measures knowing of the aggressive propensity of the dog. The Supreme Court, Suffolk County granted the defendant-owner's motion for summary judgment. On appeal by the plaintiff, the plaintiff also suggested that defendant might be liable for throwing the ball which caused the dog to run in the street and knock the plaintiff down. The Supreme Court, Appellate Division, held that the plaintiff cannot recover under such a theory, as New York does not recognize a common-law negligence cause of action to recover damages for an owner's alleged negligence in the handling of a dog. The summary judgment was affirmed as the court found the owner was not liable to pedestrian for injuries sustained. | Case | ||||||
| Derecho Animal Volume 7 Núm 4 |
|
Policy | ||||||||
| KS - Pittsburgh - Breed - DIVISION 2. - PIT BULLS. | PITTSBURGH, KS., CITY CODE §§ 10-101 - 10-108 (2011) |
In Pittsburgh, Kansas, it is unlawful to keep, harbor, own or possess a pit bull dog, except that dogs located within the City on the effective date may be kept upon strict compliance with the requirements. These requirements include proper registration, the use of a leash and muzzle unless confined, "Beware of Dog" sign, liability insurance of $50,000, and identification photographs. Any dog found to be in violation shall be seized and impounded. A violation may result in the removal of the dog, including payments for the dog’s care.
|
Local Ordinance | |||||||
| United States v. Sandia | 188 F.3d 1215 (10th Cir 1999) |
This case was vacated by the Tenth Circuit in the Hardman order. Defendant in this case sold golden eagle skins to undercover agents in New Mexico. On appeal, defendant contended that the district court failed to consider the facts under a RFRA analysis. The Tenth Circuit disagreed, finding that defendant never claimed that his sale of eagle parts was for religious purposes and that the sale of eagle parts negates a claim of religious infringement on appeal. For further discussion on religious challenges to the BGEPA, see Detailed Discussion. |
Case | |||||||
| WY - Dangerous - Article 1. In General. (Dangerous Dog Provisions) | W. S. 1977 § 11-31-105 to 108 | WY ST § 11-31-105 to 108 | This Wyoming statute provides that every person, firm, copartnership, corporation or company owning any dog, which to his knowledge has killed sheep or other livestock, shall exterminate and destroy the dog. In addition, the owner of any dog is liable for all damages that accrue to any person, firm or corporation by reason of the dog killing, wounding, worrying or chasing any sheep or other domestic animals belonging to the person, firm or corporation. | Statute | ||||||
| SC - Ordinances - § 47-3-20. Local animal care and control ordinances authorized. | Code 1976 § 47-3-20 | SC ST § 47-3-20 | This South Carolina statute provides that the governing body of each county or municipality in this State may enact ordinances and promulgate regulations for the care and control of dogs, cats, and other animals and to prescribe penalties for violations. | Statute |