Results
| Title | Citation | Alternate Citation | Summary | Type |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| UT - Nuisance Animals - Chapter 18. Furbearers. | U.C.A. 1953 § 23A-14-201 - 203 (formerly U.C.A. 1953 § 23-18-1 to 6) | UT ST § 23A-14-201 - 203 (formerly UT ST § 23-18-1 to 6) | These Utah statutes require a furbearer license to take furbearers, except for red fox, striped skunk, or beavers that are doing damage to private property (with authorization). Fur dealers must have a fur dealer certificate of registration from the Division of Wildlife Resources. | Statute |
| AU - Live export - Export Control Act 1982 | Act No. 47 of 1982 as amended | The purpose of this Act is to control the export of certain goods. In the Act, 'eligible live animals' are defined as 'prescribed goods consisting of live animals'. The Act sets out both the export and entry requirements for prescribed goods and the accreditation scheme concerning veterinarians. It also outlines the various offences that both veterinarians and exporters may be charged with, as well as details the general enforcement powers of authorised officers. | Statute | |
| IN - Fowler - Breed - Sec. 4-7. - Certain vicious breeds prohibited. | FOWLER, IN., CODE OF ORDINANCES § 4.7 |
No person shall own, keep or harbor a Pit Bull Terrier, Rottweiler, or Chow dog or any other breed of animal that meets the definition of a vicious or ferocious animal as described in section 4-1 in Fowler, Indiana. |
Local Ordinance | |
| U.S. v. Lopez (Abridged for Purposes of Eagle Topic Area) | 115 S.Ct. 1624 (1995) |
Laws governing intrastate activities will be upheld if they substantially affect interstate commerce. Under the Eagle Act, the power to regulate eagles has been summarily upheld as a valid exercise of commerce power, as it protects the eagle as a species by preventing the creation of a legal commercial market for the animal. For further discussion of the Eagle Act, see Detailed Discussion. |
Case | |
| Wilkison v. City of Arapahoe | 926 N.W.2d 441 (Neb.,2019) | 302 Neb. 968 (2019) | Brooke Wilkison (Brooke) got an American Staffordshire Terrier (pit bull) in 2015. In 2016, the city of Arapahoe passed an ordinance regarding dangerous dogs which contained a restriction on owning a Rottweiler or an American Staffordshire Terrier within city limits. The ordinance allowed for dogs licensed prior to January 1, 2017 to be grandfathered in as acceptable. Brooke did not have his dog licensed prior to the that date. Law enforcement told Brooke he could not keep the dog. Brooke filed suit seeking a declaratory judgment and an injunction to prevent Arapahoe from implementing and enforcing the ordinance. The trial court found for Brooke and Arapahoe appealed. Arapahoe's first assignment of error is that the court erred by applying the Fair Housing Act (FHA) to the ordinance. The Court found that Arapahoe was not exempt from the strictures of the FHA. Arapahoe's second assignment of error was that the Court erred by enjoining enforcement of the ordinance against Brooke because Brooke's accommodation is not reasonable and necessary. The Court found that Brooke failed to meet his burden of proof that his requested accommodation is necessary for him to receive the same enjoyment from his home as a non-disabled person would receive. Brooke already owned another dog and the ordinance only covered certain dog breeds. Brooke's other claims for relief were remanded to the district court. In conclusion, the district court erred in entering a declaratory judgment and enjoining Arapahoe from enforcing the ordinance as applied to Brooke. | Case |
| WV - Licenses - § 7-7-6d. Collection of head tax on dogs; duties of assessor and sheriff; | W. Va. Code, § 7-7-6d | WV ST § 7-7-6d | This West Virginia statute provides that it is the duty of the county assessor at the time of assessment of the personal property within such county, to assess and collect a head tax of one dollar on each male or spayed female dog and of two dollars on each unspayed female dog. In addition to the above, the assessor and his deputies shall have the further duty of collecting any such head tax on dogs as may be levied by the ordinances of each and every municipality within the county. The tax also serves the function of providing a registration for the dog. Any person who refuses to pay the tax after a specified period may have his or her dog seized, which may then be sold or eventually destroyed. | Statute |
| SC - Wildlife - Chapter 16. Importation of Wildlife. | Code 1976 § 50-16-10 to 70; § 50-11-1765 | SC ST § 50-16-10 to 70; § 50-11-1765 | This set of South Carolina laws relates to the possession of live wildlife. A permit is required for the following: the family Cervidae, a nondomestic member of the families Suidae (pigs), Tayassuidae (peccaries), Bovidae (bison, mountain goat, mountain sheep), coyote, bear, or turkey (genus Meleagris), and a "furbearer," which includes, but is not limited to, red and gray fox, raccoon, opossum, muskrat, mink, skunk, otter, bobcat, weasel, and beaver. However, wildlife imported for exhibition purposes only by state wildlife departments, municipal zoos or parks, public museums, public zoological parks, and public scientific or educational institutions operated not for profit, and transient circuses are not required to procure a permit. Under another section, release of a member of the family Suidae (pig) into the wild is prohibited except as provided by law. Further, it is unlawful for a person to possess, transport, or otherwise bring into the state or release or introduce into the state any diseased wildlife or other animal that reasonably might be expected to pose a public health or safety hazard. Violating any permitting requirement under the chapter results in a misdemeanor with a mandatory fine of not more than $1,000 or up to 6 months imprisonment, or both. | Statute |
| CITY OF TOLEDO, Appellant, v. Paul TELLINGS, Appellee |
This Reply Brief of Appellant City of Toledo was filed for the Supreme Court case of Toledo v. Tellings (871 N.E.2d 1152 (2007)). The Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals decision, finding that the state and the city have a legitimate interest in protecting citizens against unsafe conditions caused by pit bulls. |
Pleading | ||
| Chalmers v. Diwell | 74 LGR 173 |
Defendant was an exporter of pet birds. He kept birds at a premises in the course of his business. Usually the birds remained on the premises for less than 48 hours before continuing their journey to their purchasers but on occasion birds had remained on the premises for up to 12 days. A magistrates' court acquitted him of keeping a pet shop without a licence (contrary to Pet Animals Act 1951, s.1). Prosecutor appealed. Result: appeal allowed. Held: even though the premises was being used as no more than a holding center, the defendant was carrying on from that premises a business of selling pets and the premises therefore required a pet shop license. |
Case | |
| Animal Law Index Volume 6 |
Animal Law Review, Volume 6 (2000)INTRODUCTIONWILDLIFE—OUR MOST VALUABLE PUBLIC RESOURCE |
Policy |