Results
| Title | Citation | Alternate Citation | Agency Citation | Summary | Type |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Rogers v. State | 760 S.W.2d 669 (Tex. App. 1988). |
Dog fighting case. Where the dog fighting area was in an open section of woods near the defendant's home, police officers were not required to obtain a search warrant before entering the defendant's property because of the "open fields" doctrine. |
Case | ||
| Armstrong v. Riggi | 549 P.2d 753 (Nev. 1976) | 92 Nev. 280 (1976) |
Joe Riggi delivered his two unregistered Pomeranian dogs to the Armstrongs' Poodle Parlor to be bathed and groomed. The dogs died while in the care of the bailee. Riggi commenced this action to recover damages alleging that the dogs were worth more than $10,000. The issue on appeal was whether the trial court incorrectly interpreted the state court rule regarding attorney fees. Since the appellate court did in fact determine error, the case was remanded. |
Case | |
| Colombia, Ley 1348, 2009 | Ley 1348, 2009 | This law adopts the "International Convention for the Regulation of Whaling" signed in Washington D.C. on December 2, 1946 and the Protocol to the International Convention for the Regulation of Whaling signed in Washington D.C. on November 19, 1956. Colombia is one of the 89 countries that are part of the International Whaling Commission (IWC). This Commission is an intergovernmental organization that seeks to implement measures aiming for the conservation of whales and the regulation of whaling. Colombia joined this commission in 2011. | Statute | ||
| 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 | |
| CA - Research animals - Group 5. Care of Laboratory Animals | Cal. Admin. Code tit. 17, § 1150 -1159 | 17 CCR §§ 1150 -1159 | This set of regulations establishes certification requirements for research facilities that use live animals in experiments, sets minimum standards of care for research animals, and addresses the requirements for filing complaints with the Department of Public Health. | Administrative | |
| 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 | |
| Siegert v. Crook County | 266 P.3d 170 (Or.App., 2011) | 2011 WL 5402078 (Or.App.); 246 Or.App. 500 (2011) |
An individual appealed County Court’s decision to approve the location of a dog breeding kennel in a zone where such kennels were not permitted. The county interpreted the code that was in effect at the time the kennel began operating to allow dog breeding as animal husbandry, and thus permissible farm use. The Court of Appeals found the county's interpretation to be plausible. |
Case | |
| People v. Cumper | 268 N.W.2d 696 (Mich. 1978) | 83 Mich. App. 490 (Mich. 1978) |
Defendant was convicted under MCL 750.49 for being a spectator at a dog fight. He argued on appeal that the statute was impermissibly vague and unconstitutionally overbroad, for punishing an individual for mere presence at a dog fight. The court disagreed, finding that the statute was neither vague nor overbroad because it did not punish the mere witnessing of a dog fight, but attendance as a spectator to a legally prohibited dog fight. For more, see Detailed Discussion . |
Case | |
| OH - Exotic Pets - 901:1-17-12 Non-domestic animals | Ohio Admin. Code § 901:1-17-12 | OH ADC 901:1-17-12 | Under this Ohio regulation, no non-domestic animal shall be imported into the state of Ohio unless accompanied by a permit issued prior to entry and certificate of veterinary inspection, is free of evidence of any contagious or infectious diseases or parasites harmful to humans or animals, and is in full compliance with all state and federal agencies rules and regulations. The specific disease requirements listed in the remainder of the rule concern only animals such as Cervidae (deer, moose, etc.), Bovidae (antelope, wild cattle, etc.), Suidae (sporting and feral swine), Tayassuidae (peccarie), and Psittacine birds. | Administrative | |
| Commonwealth v. Szewczyk | 53 N.E.3d 1286 (Mass.App.Ct.,2016) | 89 Mass.App.Ct. 711 (2016) | In this Massachusetts case, defendant was charged with animal cruelty after he shot a dog that had wandered onto his property with a pellet gun. The pellet was lodged in the dog’s leg and caused significant pain and discomfort to the dog. Following conviction, defendant appealed the District Court’s ruling arguing that the judge erred in denying three of his eleven requests for rulings of law.Specifically, defendant's principal argument was that he had a lawful purpose in shooting (to scare the dog off his property), his intent was justified (to insure his wife's safety on the property), and the pain inflicted by defendant shooting the dog does not fit the statutory meaning of "cruel." At the close of evidence, defendant submitted a written request for ruling under Mass. R.Crim. P.26 setting out these issues. The court held that the District Court judge correctly denied the three requests because they were clearly outside the scope of rule 26 because they called upon the judge as a fact finder to weigh the evidence presented at trial. Next, the court reviewed the facts of the case to determine whether or not a rational trier of fact could have found the elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt. Ultimately, the court held that a rational trier of fact would have been able to find that defendant did commit animal cruelty by shooting the dog. The court focused on the fact that the defendant could have used other means to ensure that the dog did not enter the property again without causing pain and suffering to the dog by shooting the dog in the leg. The judgment was affirmed. | Case |