Results
| Title | Citation | Alternate Citation | Summary | Type |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Rabideau v. City of Racine | 627 N.W.2d 795 (Wis. 2001) |
Pet owner could not recover damages for negligent infliction of emotional distress after a police officer shot her dog. While the court recognized the bond between owner and pet, public policy prevented such recovery. However, under the proper circumstances, a person could recover for intentional infliction of emotional distress for the loss of a pet. |
Case | |
| U.S. v. Hardman (On Rehearing En Banc) | 2002 WL 1790584 (only Westlaw citation currently available) |
The Hardman and Wilgus cases are remanded for factfinding where the record was limited as to whether the government employed the least restrictive means to support its compelling interests of protecting eagles and Native American culture. On the Saenz motion for return of eagle feathers to a non-federally recognized Indian religious practitioner, the court holds that the government failed to support its assertions that opening the permit system to all adherents of Indian religions would compromise the eagle population or destroy federal trust obligations to Native American tribes/culture. For discussion of the BGEPA and religious challenges, see Detailed Discussion . |
Case | |
| CASO 02437-2013 JANE MARGARITA CÓSAR CAMACHO Y OTROS CONTRA RESOLUCION DE FOJAS 258 | CASO 02437-2013 | Plaintiff, a blind woman, brought a constitutional grievance against the decision issued by the Fifth Civil Chamber of the Superior Court of Justice of Lima on January 15, 2013. This decision denied the action of protection after Defendants denied entry of Plaintiff's guide dog at their supermarkets. The Constitutional Tribunal ordered that the blind were allow to enter to the supermarkets with their guide dogs. | Case | |
| WY - Hunting - Article 1. Game Bird Farms. | W.S.1977 §§ 23-5-101 - 111 | WY ST §§ 23-5-101 - 111 | This Wyoming statute provides that one who desires to operate a game bird farm must file a verified declaration that states the purpose of the farm (breeding, propagating, or hunting) and a legal description of the tract of land. | Statute |
| SC - Hunting - Article 13. Fox and Coyote Hunting Enclosures | Code 1976 § 50-11-2600 - 2650 | SD ST § 50-11-2600 - 2650 | Under these South Carolina statutes, it is unlawful to buy, sell, transfer, possess, or release a live coyote or fox except as permitted. Foxes and coyotes obtained to stock hunting enclosures may be obtained only by the enclosure owner or operator from a South Carolina licensed trapper. A violation of any provision is a misdemeanor; the first offense is punishable by a fine of $50-500, and/or imprisonment up to 30 days. | Statute |
| ALDF v. Quigg | 932 F.2d 920(Fed. Cir. 1991) | 1991 U.S. App. LEXIS 7884 | This case establishes the relative inability of third parties to challenge the veracity of an existing patent for genetically engineered animals. Judicial review is rare in such cases because third party plaintiffs, under the Administrative Procedures Act, lack standing to challenge the Patent and Trademark Office's interpretation of existing law. | Case |
| City of Marion v. Schoenwald | 631 N.W.2d 213 (S.D.,2001) | 2001 SD 95 |
To keep excessive numbers of large dogs from becoming a public nuisance, the City of Marion, South Dakota passed an ordinance that, among other things, limited households to four dogs, only two of which could weigh over 25 pounds. Schoenwald owned three dogs: one shepherd-collie mix weighing 75 pounds and two golden retrievers, weighing 30 pounds and 20 pounds. She was then notified that by housing three dogs weighing over 25 pounds she was in violation of the ordinance. She failed to comply with the City's order to remove one dog and was issued a citation. The Supreme Court reversed the lower court's ruling in Schoenwald's favor and found that South Dakota law permits municipalities broad power to regulate the keeping of dogs; thus the weight limitation included in the City's comprehensive pet ordinance was within its authority. |
Case |
| SC - Exotic pets - Chapter 2. Large Wild Cats, Non-Native Bears and Great Apes | Code 1976 § 47-2-10 to 70 | This South Carolina chapter, effective January 1, 2018, makes it unlawful for a person to possess, keep, purchase, have custody or control of, breed, or sell within this State a large wild cat, non-native bear, or great ape, including transactions conducted via the Internet. A person in possession of such animal before January 1, 2018 who is the legal possessor of the animal may keep possession if he or she complies with seven conditions listed under Section 47-2-30. Authorities may confiscate large wild cats, non-native bears, or great apes held in violation of this chapter. Cities or counties may also adopt more restrictive ordinances than this chapter. A person who violates this chapter must be fined not more than $1,000 or imprisoned for not more than 30 days for a first offense, and must be fined not more than $5,000 or imprisoned for not more than 90 days for a second offense. Exempted entities include certain non-profit animal protection organizations, university research labs holding Class R registration under the AWA, any person who possesses a valid USDA Class A, B, or C license in good standing, and circuses that are incorporated and hold a Class C license under the AWA that are temporarily in this State, among others. | Statute | |
| VT - Endangered Species - Chapter 123. Protection of Endangered Species | 10 V.S.A. § 5401 - 10 | VT ST T 10 § 5401 - 10 | These Vermont statutes set out the state's endangered species provisions, including the related definitions, rules for listing species, and regulations for establishing the committees. Violation of the provisions against taking incur criminal enforcement and restitution. Interestingly, there is a provision that provides for the location of listed endangered species to be kept confidential. | Statute |
| OK - Dog bite - Oklahoma Dog Bite Laws | 4 Okl. St. Ann. § 41 - 47 | OK ST T. 4 § 41 - 47 | These statutes comprise Oklahoma's Dangerous Dog Laws. The state imposes strict liability for dog bites; "the owner or owners of any dog shall be liable for damages to the full amount of any damages sustained when his dog, without provocation, bites or injures any person while such person is in or on a place where he has a lawful right to be." Further, any person may lawfully kill a dog who is chasing that person's livestock. An owner of a dog that has been adjudged "dangerous" must register the dog, enclose the dog except when out on a leash with muzzle, and post $50,000 in liability insurance. An owner who does not follow the provisions not only faces the confiscation of his or her dog, but may also be subject to a one-year misdemeanor. | Statute |