Results
Displaying 71 - 80 of 6638
| Title | Citation | Alternate Citation | Summary | Type | ||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| MS - Dog Licenses - Chapter 53. Dogs and Rabies Control. | Miss. Code Ann. § 41-53-11 | MS ST 41-53-11 | This Mississippi statute provides that it is the lawful duty for any sheriff, conservation officer or peace officer of a county or municipality to kill any dog above the age of three (3) months found running at large on whose neck there is no such collar and tag or who are not inoculated according to state law. No action shall be maintained by the owner for such killing. However, the statute then goes on to say that it is the duty of such officer to first impound the dogs for five days and give a description of the dog to the sheriff. | Statute | ||||||||
| ID - Predator - Chapter 58. Protection of Natural Resources (wolf declaration) | I.C. § 67-5801 - 5807 | ID ST § 67-5801 - 5807 | The purpose of Chapter 58 is to provide an orderly, comprehensive plan for the protection of the natural resources of the state and for the suppression of dangers or threats. Section 5806 the Idaho legislature finds and declares that the state's citizens, businesses, hunting, tourism and agricultural industries, private property and wildlife, are immediately and continuously threatened and harmed by the sustained presence and growing population of Canadian gray wolves in the state of Idaho. The legislature states that "a disaster emergency is in existence as a result of the introduction of Canadian gray wolves, which have caused and continue to threaten vast devastation of Idaho's social culture, economy and natural resources." | Statute | ||||||||
| Pete Mansour v. King County, a municipal corporation; King County Animal Control; King County Licensing and Regulatory Services | In this Washington case, Division One of the Washington Court of Appeals reversed a King County Animal Control decision declaring a dog vicious and ordering her removed from the county. This decision overrides the practice of a dog being presumed guilty until proven innocent in that county. The court found that for Mansour or any other pet owner to prove effectively present his or her case and rebut the evidence against him or her, due process requires that he or she be able to subpoena witnesses and present records. Mr. Mansour was prejudiced in his case because he was not allowed to do so and was not given sufficient notice for the hearing. | Pleading | ||||||||||
| US - Elephant - Asian Elephant Conservation Act | 16 USC 4261 - 4266 | A U.S. federal law that reaffirms the endangered status of Asian elephants and allocates money toward conservation efforts. | Statute | |||||||||
| Derecho Animal Volume 2 Núm 3 |
|
Policy | ||||||||||
| New England Anti-Vivisection Society v. United States Fish and Wildlife Service and Yerkes National Primate Research Center | 208 F. Supp. 3d 142 (D.D.C. 2016) | 2016 WL 4919871 (D.D.C., 2016) | New England Anti-Vivisection Society (NEAVS), a non-profit organization that dedicates itself to animal-welfare, brought suit against the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) for issuing an export permit to Yerkes National Primate Research Center (Yerkes). NEAVS filed suit against FWS arguing that FWS had violated the Endangered Species Act, the Administrative Procedure Act, the National Environmental Policy Act, and the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species. NEAVS argued that FWS had violated the acts by allowing Yerkes to export chimpanzees in exchange for making a financial donation that would be put towards a program to help with “habitat destruction and disease, which face wild chimpanzees in East Africa.” The court reviewed the case and determined that it did not have subject-matter jurisdiction to address the claims made by NEAVS. The court found that NEAVS was not able to establish standing under Article III of the Constitution because NEAVS had not “suffered an injury in fact.” Ultimately, the court held that NEAVS was unable to show that it had a “concrete and particularized injury in fact that is actual or imminent” and that is “traceable” to FWS’ actions. As a result, the court granted summary judgment in favor of FWS. | Case | ||||||||
| Amos v. State | 478 S.W.3d 764 (Tex. App. 2015), petition for discretionary review refused (Nov. 18, 2015) | 2015 WL 4043302 (Tex. App., 2015) | A jury found appellant guilty of the offense of cruelty to a nonlivestock animal after he beat a Shih Tzu to death with a broom. After finding an enhancement paragraph true, the jury assessed Appellant's punishment at thirty-one months’ confinement. Appellant asserted five issues on this appeal: (1) the admission of a State's witness's recorded statement to the police, which the court overruled because the evidence was received without objection; (2) the denial of his motion to quash the indictment for failing to allege an offense, which the court overruled because the indictment tracked the statutory language; (3) the denial of six of his challenges for cause, which the court overruled because the venire members gave the defense counsel contradictory answers meaning the trial court could not abuse its discretion in refusing to excuse a juror; (4) the denial of his objection to the charge, which the court overruled because the jury charge tracked the statute’s language; and (5) the denial of his motion to suppress the dog’s necropsy, which the court overruled because the appellant had no intention of reclaiming the dog's body or her ashes and thereby relinquished his interest in them such that he could no longer retain a reasonable expectation of privacy and lacked standing to contest the reasonableness of any search. The lower court’s decision was therefore affirmed. | Case | ||||||||
| ME - Cat - Consolidated Cat Laws | 7 M. R. S. A. § 3916 - 3919C; 1 M. R. S. A. § 217 | ME ST T. 7 § 3916 - 3919C, 4041; ME ST T. 1 § 217 | These statutes comprise Maine's cat laws. Among the provisions include rabies vaccination requirements, stray cat procedures, and the designation of the "state cat." | Statute | ||||||||
| Canada - Saskatchewan - Dangerous Dog Law | SS 2005, c M-36.1, 374-380 | This set of Saskatchewan, Canada laws comprises the Dangerous Dog laws. | Statute | |||||||||
| OH - Lakewood - Breed - 506.03 PIT BULL DOGS OR CANARY DOGS | LAKEWOOD, OH., ORDINANCES § 506.03 (2008) |
No person may keep, harbor or own pit bull dogs or canary dogs in Lakewood, Ohio, with exceptions for dogs in the city on the effective date. A dog may be allowed to stay provided it has a microchip for identification, has been sterilized, the owner has liability insurance of $100,000, and the dog is properly confined or secured. Failure to comply could result in the removal or impoundment of the dog. The owner may also be charged with a misdemeanor. |
Local Ordinance |