Results
| Title | Citation | Alternate Citation | Summary | Type |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| VA - Hunting - § 29.1-521. Unlawful to hunt, trap, possess, sell or transport wild birds and wild animals except as permitted; e | Va. Code Ann. § 29.1-521 | VA ST § 29.1-521 | This statute makes it a Class 3 misdemeanor to take listed wild animals. In 2014, Virginia prohibited hunting or killing any deer or bear with a gun, firearm, or other weapon with the aid or assistance of dogs on Sundays. This statute also provides a procedural mechanism for registered Virginia Native Americans to obtain wild animal parts (i.e., eagle feathers) for ceremonial religious use. | Statute |
| KS - Spring Hill - Breed - 2-402. PROHIBITED ANIMALS - GENERALLY (Pit Bull Ordinance) | SPRING HILL, KS., CITY CODE §§ 2-401 - 2-404 (2008) |
Spring Hill, Kansas, considers pit bull dogs to be inherently dangerous and makes it unlawful to keep, harbor, own or possess any pit bull dog. Any dog in violation may be immediately seized and impounded. even killed if necessary. A violation may result in a $500 - $2,000 fine and imprisonment for up to 179 days. The dog will also have to be removed from the city.
|
Local Ordinance | |
| Williams v. McMahan | 2002 WL 242538 (Wa. 2002) | 110 Wash.App. 1031 (2002) |
The plaintiff sued for damages as a result of the wrongful spaying of her purebred dog, which she intended to breed. The court found that damages should be measured by the fair market value of the dog. |
Case |
| In the Matter of: Richard O'Barry | 1999 NOAA LEXIS 1 | 1999 NOAA LEXIS 1 |
In 1999, civil penalties in the amount of $59,500 were assessed for the release of two dolphins from captivity. The dolphins were not prepared to survive in the wild and sustained life-threatening injuries as a result of their release. An administrative law judge found that the release of two dolphins without providing them with the necessary skills for survival resulted in harassment and injury to them, and therefore, constituted a violation of the MMPA. |
Case |
| State Emotional Support Animal Laws | State map | |||
| UK - Slaughter - The Welfare of Animals (Slaughter or Killing) Regulations 1995 | 1995 No. 731 | Under these Regulations it is an offence to cause, or to permit, unavoidable excitement, pain or suffering to any animal during restraint, stunning, slaughter or killing. | Statute | |
| WY - Grizzly Bear - Article 10. Grizzly Bear Relocation | W. S. 1977 § 23-1-1001 | WY ST § 23-1-1001 | This Wyoming statute requires that, when a grizzly bear is relocated, that the department must notify the sheriff and issue a press release to the media and sheriff. The press release must provide the date and location of the relocation, and the number of bears to be relocated. | Statute |
| SC - Exotic Pets - § 47-5-50. Prohibition on sale of wild carnivores as pets; sale of domesticated ferrets. | Code 1976 § 47-5-20, § 47-5-50 | SC ST § 47-5-20, § 47-5-50 | This South Carolina law provides that no carnivores, which normally are not domesticated, may be sold as pets in this State. A carnivore kept by an individual must not be allowed to run at large and then returned to confinement. A normally wild animal indigenous to this State, if held captive for a period of time, may be released to the wild. This section does not apply to domesticated ferrets. Each business that sells ferrets must also display a notice about the potential danger of unprovoked attacks against humans. | Statute |
| Farm Sanctuary, Inc. v. Department of Food & Agriculture | 74 Cal.Rptr.2d 75 (Cal.App. 2 Dist.,1998.) |
Environmental group brought suit challenging regulation allowing ritual slaughter exception to statute requiring that animals be treated humanely. The Superior Courtupheld regulation and appeal was taken. The Court of Appeal, Masterson, J., held that: (1) group had standing to sue, and (2) regulation was valid. |
Case | |
| Rowbotham v. Maher | 658 A.2d 912 (R.I. 1995) |
The plaintiff argues that G.L. 1956 (1987 Reenactment) § 4-13-16 permits recovery for indirect injuries, specifically including emotional trauma resulting from the destruction of property, in this instance the destruction of plaintiff's dog by two other dogs. The court disagrees, finding that under § 4-13-16, a person may recover damages in a civil action from a dog owner where the dog causes an injury to a person or to another domestic animal, and nothing in the statute permits recovery for emotional trauma. With regard to the negligent infliction of emotional distress claim, the court notes that in this jurisdiction a third party may recover if, inter alia, the party is a close relative of the victim, which was not the case here. |
Case |