Results
Displaying 91 - 100 of 6638
| Title | Citation | Alternate Citation | Agency Citation | Summary | Type |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| OK - Dangerous - § 717. Owner of mischievous animal which kills person | 21 Okl. St. Ann. § 717 | OK ST T. 21 § 717 | This Oklahoma law states that an owner of a "mischievous animal" who knowing its propensities allows it to go at large or does not exercise ordinary care in keeping it, will be guilty of manslaughter in the second degree if while at large it kills a human. | Statute | |
| Fabrikant v. French | 722 F.Supp.2d 249 (N.D.N.Y., 2010) | 2010 WL 2774043 (N.D.N.Y.) |
Plaintiff Jody Fabrikant, who had recently placed an advertisement for the adoption of puppies, was in possession of fifteen animals, including fourteen dogs and one cat. Reacting to several complaints regarding the animals’ treatment, defendants, the Ulster County SPCA and employees, executed a search warrant resulting in Fabrikant's arrest and seizure of thirteen of her fifteen animals. Plaintiff subsequently asserted that her federal constitutional rights were violated during the course of her criminal prosecution for animal cruelty. With respect to all four federal claims, the United States District Court for the Northern District of New York granted defendants’ motions for summary judgment since the existence of probable cause (e.g., video recordings and photographs of the condition of the plaintiff’s home) insulated the defendants from liability for their decisions to seize Plaintiff's animals. |
Case | |
| CA - Import, dog - Chapter 1.5. Dog Importation: Health Certificates | West's Ann. Cal. Health & Safety Code § 121720 - 121723 | This chapter relates to importation of dogs into California for sale purposes. A person seeking to bring a dog into this state or importing dogs into this state for the purpose of resale or change of ownership shall obtain a health certificate for that dog, completed by a licensed veterinarian and is dated within 10 days prior to the date on which the dog is brought into the state. However, this chapter does not apply to a person who brings a dog into the state that will not be offered for resale or if the ownership of the dog is not expected to change or to dogs used military or law enforcement work. A person who violates a provision of this chapter is guilty of an infraction, punishable by a fine not to exceed $250 for each dog for which a violation has occurred. | Statute | ||
| OR - Vehicle - 811.200. Carrying dog on external part of vehicle; penalties | O.R.S. § 811.200 | This Oregon law states that a person commits a Class D traffic violation if he or she carries a dog upon the hood, fender, running board or other external part of any automobile or truck that is upon a highway unless the dog is protected by framework, carrier or other device sufficient to keep it from falling from the vehicle. | Statute | ||
| NJ - Dogs - Consolidated Dog Laws | N. J. S. A. 2A:42-101 to 2A:42-113; 2C:29-3.1; 4:19-1 to 4:19-43; 4:19A-1 - 17; 4:21B-1 - 3; 4:22A-1 to 13; 23:4-25, 26, 46; 26:4-78 - 95; 40:48-1; 54:4-83 | These statutes comprise New Jersey's dog laws. Among the provisions include laws regarding domesticated animals in housing projects, rabies control laws, licensing requirements, and dangerous dog laws. | Statute | ||
| Earth Island Institute v. Evans | 2004 WL 1774221 (N.D. Cal. 2004) (No reporter citation) |
The Secretary of Commerce made a final finding that the intentional deployment on or encirclement of dolphins using purse seine nets did not have a significant adverse effect on any depleted dolphin stock in the Eastern Tropical Pacific Ocean. Several organizations challenged that finding under the Administrative Procedures Act, and the matter came before this Court along with simultaneous motions for summary judgment from both the plaintiff and defendant. The Court concluded that Plaintiff's met their burden of demonstrating that they are entitled to judgment, and the finding of the Secretary is set aside. |
Case | ||
| State v. Josephs | 328 Conn. 21, 176 A.3d 542 (2018) | 2018 WL 576792 (Conn. Jan. 30, 2018) | In this Connecticut case, defendant, Delano Josephs appeals his judgment of conviction of a single violation of § 53–247(a). The incident stems from Defendant's shooting of his neighbor's cat with a BB gun. A witness heard the discharge of the BB gun, then saw a man he recognized as defendant walking with a BB gun in his hands in a "stalking" manner. Over a week later, defendant's neighbor noticed blood on her cat's shoulder and brought her cat to the veterinarian who found three or four metal objects that resembled BBs near the cat's spine. After receiving this diagnosis, the cat's owner reported to police that her neighbor was "shooting her cats." Animal control officers then interviewed defendant who admitted he has a BB gun and shoots at cats to scare them away, but "he had no means of hurting any cats." At the trial level, defendant raised the argument that § 53–247(a) requires specific intent to harm an animal. The trial court disagreed, finding the statute requires only a general intent to engage in the conduct. On appeal, defendant argues that since he was convicted under the "unjustifiably injures" portion of § 53–247(a), the trial court applied the wrong mens rea for the crime. In reviewing the statute, this court observed that the use of the term "unjustifiably" by the legislature is meant to distinguish that section from the section that says "intentionally." Thus, the legislature use of two different terms within the same subsection convinced the court that clause under which defendant was convicted is only a general intent crime. On defendant's void for vagueness challenge, the court found that this unpreserved error did not deprive him of a fair trial. A person of ordinary intelligence would understand that shooting a cat for trespassing is not a justifiable act. While the court agreed with defendant that "unjustifiably injures" is susceptible to other interpretations, in the instant case, defendant conduct in killing a companion animal is not permitted under this or other related laws. The judgment was affirmed. | Case | |
| MS - Hunting, birds - § 49-1-39. Killing animals or birds injurious to agriculture; | Miss. Code Ann. § 49-1-39; Miss. Code Ann § 49-5-7 | MS ST § 49-1-39; MS ST § 49-5-7 | Mississippi amended its laws in 2000 to specifically disallow the killing of any bird protected under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act, and was further amended to prohibit the killing or molestation of any wild bird (other than a game bird and some excepted species). While the law was written with an evident bias toward agricultural protection, it does specifically mention the eagle as one of the species protected under federal law. | Statute | |
| ME - Fish and Wildlife - Chapter 7. Regulations for Wildlife in Captivity | 09-137 CMR Ch. 7, § 7.00 - 7.18 | 09-137 CMR Ch. 7, § 7.00 - 7.18 | This set of Maine regulations concerns the keeping of captive wildlife. A permit is generally required for importation, possession, propagation, rehabilitation, and exhibition of wildlife in the state. Wildlife held in captivity must be confined, contained, controlled, and sheltered in such a way as to protect it, and to protect property of others and the health and safety of the public. Section 7.11 provides the conditions and restrictions under the permit. Section 7.12 states that no primate shall be permitted unless the applicant/permit holder demonstrates a physical aide legitimate need for physical aide from a primate, and the animal in question is specifically trained for such purposes ( or the applicant must be providing foster care or training for the primate under direction or supervision of a recognized authority for same). | Administrative | |
| MN - Vehicle - M.S.A. § 97B.091. Use of motor vehicles to chase wild animals prohibited | M. S. A. § 97B.091 | MN ST § 97B.091 | This Minnesota states that a person may not use a motor vehicle to intentionally drive, chase, run over, kill, or take a wild animal. | Statute |