Results
| Title | Citation | Alternate Citation | Summary | Type |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| MI - Assistance animals - Assistance Animal/Guide Dog Laws | MCL 287.291 and MCL 750.50a, 750.502c; MCL 752.51a, 752.52, 752.61 - 64; M.C.L.A. 37.301 - 307 | The following statutes comprise the state's relevant assistance animal and guide dog laws. | Statute | |
| State v. Murphy | 10 A.3d 697 (Me.,2010) | 2010 ME 140; 2010 WL 5353130 (Me.) |
Defendant appeals her convictions for assault of an officer, refusing to submit to arrest, criminal use of an electronic weapon, and two counts of cruelty to animals. In October 2009, a state police trooper was dispatched to defendant's home to investigate complaints that she was keeping animals despite a lifetime ban imposed after her 2004 animal cruelty conviction. The appellate found each of her five claims frivolous, and instead directed its inquiry as to whether the trial court correctly refused recusal at defendant's request. This court found that the trial court acted with "commendable restraint and responsible concern for Murphy's fundamental rights," especially in light of defendant's outbursts and provocations. |
Case |
| Bates v. Constable | 781 N.Y.S.2d 861 (N.Y. 2004) | 781 N.Y.S.2d 861 (N.Y. 2004) |
A son obtained a dog from defendant for his father to have as a pet. The dog bit the father and the father sued defendant for failing to warn him of the dog's vicious propensities. The Court held the defendant did not owe the second transferee of the dog a duty to warn and granted summary judgment in favor of defendant. |
Case |
| In re: WILLIAM JOSEPH VERGIS | 55 Agric. Dec. 148 (1996) | 1996 WL 189726 (U.S.D.A.) | Except as provided in 9 CFR § 2.11, neither Animal Welfare Act (7 USCS §§ 2131 et seq.) nor regulations issued under Act specifically provide for order prohibiting person who is unlicensed from obtaining license; nevertheless, Act provides that Secretary has general authority to promulgate such "orders," as well as such rules and regulations, as may be necessary to effectuate purposes of Act (7 USCS § 2151), which means that Secretary does have power to order that unlicensed person who violates Act, or regulations or standards under Act, be barred from licensure. | Case |
| US - Whales - Chapter 14A. Whale Conservation and Protection. | 16 U.S.C.A. § 917 - 917d | These statutes extended federal authority and responsibility over the conservation and protection of all mammals including certain species of whales. The statutes also granted the Secretary of Commerce with authority to complete a comprehensive study of all whales in an effort to conserve and protect them effectively. | Statute | |
| DE - Hunting, Internet - § 704(h). Prohibited hunting and trapping devices and methods; confiscation of devices; primitive weapon season | 7 Del.C. § 704 | Del. Code Ann. tit. 7, § 704 (West) | Section (h) of this Delaware law on prohibited hunting methods prohibits "Internet hunting." Under the law, no person shall operate, provide, sell, use, or offer to operate, provide, sell, or use any computer software or service that allows a person not physically present at a hunt site to remotely control a weapon that could be used to take a live animal or bird by remote operation, including, but not limited to, weapons or devices set up to fire through the use of the Internet or through a remote control device. The statute also regulates trapping. Per the law, no person shall make use of any pitfall, deadfall, scaffold, cage, snare, trap, net, pen, baited hook, lure, urine or baited field or any other similar device for the purpose of injuring, capturing or killing birds or animals protected by the laws of this State, except as otherwise specified. | Statute |
| NE - Veterinary - Article 33. Veterinary Medicine and Surgery Practice Act | Neb.Rev.St. § 38-3301 to 38- 3335 | NE ST § 38-3301 to 38- 3335 | These are the state's veterinary practice laws. Among the provisions include licensing requirements, laws concerning the state veterinary board, veterinary records laws, and the laws governing disciplinary actions for impaired or incompetent practitioners. | Statute |
| LA - Dog Bite - Art. 2321. Damage caused by animals. | LA C.C. Art. 2321 | This Louisiana civil code statute provides that an owner of any animal is liable for damages caused by that animal only upon a showing that he or she knew or should have known that his or her animal's behavior would cause damage, that the damage could have been prevented by the exercise of reasonable care, and that he or she failed to exercise such reasonable care. However, the owner of a dog is strictly liable for injuries to persons or property caused by the dog and which the owner could have prevented and which did not result from the injured person's provocation of the dog. | Statute | |
| Nichols v. Sukaro Kennels | 555 N.W.2d 689 (Iowa, 1996) | 61 A.L.R.5th 883 (1996) |
During a stay at defendant kennel, the kennel owner's dog tore off plaintiff's dog's left front leg and shoulder blade. Plaintiff's petition sought damages to compensate for the injuries and suffering the dog incurred and the loss of aesthetic intrinsic value of the dog. In upholding the district court's denial of damages for emotional injury and mental suffering, the Court of Appeals rejected plaintiff's argument for damages based on the intrinsic value of a pet for the negligent injury to the dog. |
Case |
| Ruiz v. Franklin County Animal Control | 732 S.E.2d 393 (Table), 2012 WL 4510934 (N.C.App.) (unpublished) |
This North Carolina case is an appeal from a denial of summary judgment in favor of Franklin County Animal Control. Defendants argue that the trial court erred by declining to enter summary judgment in their favor on the basis of governmental immunity. The appellate court agreed, reversed the trial court's decision, and remanded for an entry of summary judgment for defendants. The court found that there is no dispute in the record that Franklin County Animal Control and Stallings, in his official capacity as an Animal Control Officer, were performing a governmental function in impounding and euthanizing plaintiff's dog. Further, plaintiff failed to allege in her complaint that defendants waived governmental immunity, subjecting her action to dismissal. |
Case |