Results

Displaying 71 - 80 of 6637
Title Citation Alternate Citation Agency Citation Summary Type
Wild Horse Observers Ass'n, Inc. v. New Mexico Livestock Bd. 363 P.3d 1222 (N.M., 2015) Certiorari Denied, Oct. 13, 2015, No. 35,504. This case dealt with a determination made by the New Mexico Livestock Board that a group of undomesticated, unowned, free-roaming horses (the Placitas horses) were “livestock” and “estray” rather than wild horses under the Livestock Code. The Wild Horse Observers Association filed suit against the Board, but their claim was dismissed by the District Court. The Court of Appeals held that 1) the horses were not “livestock”, as they had never been domesticated and therefore could not be “estray”; 2) the Board had a statutory duty to test and relocate wild horses captured on public land; and 3) the Plaintiffs did state a claim that was sufficient to survive the motion to dismiss. Reversed and remanded for further proceedings Case
RI - Impound - § 4-13-15. Collaring of dogs--Impoundment and disposition of uncollared dogs Gen. Laws, 1956, § 4-13-15 RI ST § 4-13-15 This Rhode Island statute provides that every owner of a dog must collar his or her dog around its neck and distinctly marked with its owner's name and its registered number. Interestingly, it states that "any person" may cause any dog not so collared to be impounded in the public pound of the town or city where the dog is found. Further, if the dog is not claimed by its owner within a period of five days after the impoundment, the dog may be disposed of or destroyed. This statute also provides additional specific provisions for the towns of Glocester, West Warwick, and Exeter. Statute
NC - Equine Activity Liability - Article 1. Equine Activity Liability N.C.G.S.A. § 99E-1 to 99E-9 NC ST § 99E-1 to 99E-9 This act stipulates that an equine sponsor or equine professional, or any other person, including corporations and partnerships, are immune from liability for the death or injury of a participant, which resulted from the inherent risks of equine activities. New provisions added in 2013 now also protect a farm animal activity sponsor, a farm animal professional, or any other person engaged in a farm animal activity, including a corporation or partnership, shall not be liable for an injury to or the death of a participant resulting from the inherent risks of farm animal activities. However, there are exceptions to this rule: a person, corporation, or partnership will be held liable for injuries of an equine activity participant if he or she displays a willful and wanton or intentional disregard for the safety of the participant and if he or she fails to make reasonable and prudent efforts in ensuring the safety of the participant. Statute
COMMONWEALTH v. MASSINI 188 A.2d 816 (Pa.Super 1963) 200 Pa.Super. 257 (Pa.Super 1963)

In this Pennsylvania case, defendant was prosecuted for killing a cat that belonged to his neighbor. The section under which he was prosecuted prohibited the killing of a 'domestic animal of another person.' However, a cat was not one of the animals defined as a ‘domestic animal’ by the Act. Using rules of statutory interpretation, the court found that the omission of 'cat' from the listed species of the penal code provision was intentional by the legislature, and thus the defendant's sentence was discharged.

Case
WI - Breeder - Chapter ATCP 16. Dog Sellers and Dog Facility Operators. WI ADC s ATCP 16.01 - 30 Wis. Adm. Code s ATCP 16.1 to 30 This set of administrative regulations from Wisconsin covers the conditions under which dogs must be kept by dog breeders (defined as any person who sells at least 25 dogs from more than 3 litters) and dog dealers. Dog sellers and dog facility operators are required to be licensed under the section. Per ATCP 16.18, a person licensed under this chapter may not transfer a dog to the buyer unless the dog is at least 7 weeks old, the dog is accompanied by its dam, or the department approves the transfer in writing. Minimum standards of care are outlined for licensees for dogs kept indoors or outdoors. Administrative
Mitchell v. Snider 41 N.Y.S.3d 450 (N.Y. Civ. Ct. 2016) 51 Misc. 3d 1229(A); 2016 WL 3191291 This is a case of an unmarried, co-habitating couple that jointly bought a dog and now dispute who should have the dog after the relationship has terminated. Mitchell brought this replevin action against his girlfriend, Snider, to recover possession of Django, their black lab. This court recognized the traditional way to treat such a case is to consider which party has superior possessory right to the dog. However, modern courts have started to recognize a special category of property in pets and have used a 'best for all concerned' analysis to decide who gets the animal. In this case, the court grants judgment for Snider in part because she had been solely responsible for the dog's care for the previous 20 months. No money was awarded to Mitchell because the expenses he paid were an expression of the parties' mutual love and desire to care for the dog. Case
NY - Assistance Animals - Assistance Animal/Guide Dog Laws McKinney's Agriculture and Markets Law § 108, 110, 118, 123-b; McKinney's General Obligations Law § 11-107; McKinney's Civil Rights Law § 47, 47-a to c; McKinney's Penal Law § 195.11 - 12; § 242.00 - .15; McKinney's Public Housing Law § 223-a, b McKinney's Executive Law § 296; McKinney's Social Services Law § 303-a; McKinney's Transportation Law § 147; McKinney's Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1153 The following statutes comprise the state's relevant assistance animal and guide dog laws. Statute
MI - Equine Liability - Chapter 691. Judiciary. Equine Activity Liability Act MCLA 691.1661 - 1667 MI ST 691.1661 - 1667 This act stipulates that an equine sponsor or professional, or any other person, is immune from liability for the death or injury of a participant, which resulted from the inherent risks of equine activities. However, there are exceptions to this rule: a person will be held liable for injuries if he or she commits a negligent act or omission that results in the proximate cause of injury or death, and if he or she fails to make reasonable and prudent efforts in ensuring the safety of the participant. In addition, a person will also be held liable for the injury of an equine activity participant if he or she is injured on the land or at a facility due to a dangerous latent condition of which was known to the equine sponsor, professional or other person. Statute
Mongelli v. Cabral 632 N.Y.S.2d 927 (City of Younkers Ct. 1995) 166 Misc.2d 240 (1995)

A couple boarded their pet bird with a couple who groomed and boarded birds while the wife underwent extensive medical treatment.  There was a dispute between the owners and the boarders over whether the bird was a gift or the subject of long-term boarding.  The court found that the boarders had not established that the bird had been a gift.

Case
US - Wolf - Final Rule Designating the Northern Rocky Mountain Population of Gray Wolf as a Distinct Population Segment and Remo FWS–R6–ES–2008–008; 92220–1113–0000; ABC Code: C6

Establishes a distinct population segment (DPS) of the gray wolf in the Northern Rocky Mountains and removes the DPS from the list of endangered and threatened wildlife.

Administrative

Pages