Results

Displaying 71 - 80 of 6639
Title Citation Alternate Citation Summary Type
Gerofsky v. Passaic County Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals 870 A.2d 704 (N.J. 2005) 376 N.J.Super. 405

The President of the New Jersey SPCA brought an action to have several county SPCA certificates of authority revoked.  The county SPCAs brought a counterclaim alleging the revocation was beyond the state SPCA's statutory authority.  The trial court revoked one county's certificate of authority, but the Court of Appeals held the revocation was an abuse of discretion.

Case
ND - Hunting - Chapter 20.1-01. General Provisions. NDCC 20.1-01-31 ND ST 20.1-01-31 This law reflects North Dakota's hunter harassment provision. Under the law, no person may intentionally interfere with the lawful taking of wildlife on public or private land by another or intentionally harass, drive, or disturb any wildlife on public or private land for the purpose of disrupting a lawful hunt. Also, no person may remove with or tamper with a legally set trap. This section does not apply to any incidental interference arising from lawful activity by public or private land users or to landowners or operators interfering with hunters on land owned or operated by that individual. Statute
KS - Abandon - Chapter 47. Livestock and Domestic Animals. K. S. A. 47-835 KS ST § 47-835 This Kansas statute provides that any animal placed in the custody of a licensed veterinarian that is unclaimed by its owner for a period of more than ten (10) days after written notice by registered or certified mail is given, shall be deemed to be abandoned and may be turned over to the nearest humane society, or dog pound or disposed of as the custodian may deem proper. The giving of notice to the owner of record immunizes the veterinarian from liability. Statute
HI - Lien - § 507-1. Animals, lien for care of HRS § 507-1, 507-2, 507-3 HI ST § 507-1, 507-2, 507-3 Whoever pastures, feeds, or shelters animals by virtue of a contract with or by the consent of the owner of the animals for a compensation agreed upon, has a lien on the animals for pasturing, feeding, or sheltering to secure payment thereof with costs. Statute
Edmondson v. Oklahoma 91 P.3d 605 (Okla. 2004) 2004 OK 23 (2004)

Petitioners sought relief from a temporary injunction for the Respondents, which prevented petitioners from enforcing the statute banning cockfighting.  The Supreme Court assumed original jurisdiction and held that the statute did not violate the Oklahoma State Constitution, and was not unconstitutionally overbroad.  Relief granted for petitioners.

Case
What to Expect When Adopting a Dog

What to Expect When Adopting a Dog, Diane Rose-Solomon, SOP3 Publishing (2016).

 

Policy
People v. Leach Not Reported in N.W.2d, 2006 WL 2683727 (Mich.App.)

Defendant's conviction arises from the killing of a rabbit during the execution of a civil court order at defendant's home on April 15, 2004. Because the court did not find MCL 750.50b unconstitutionally vague and further found sufficient evidence in support of defendant's conviction, defendant's conviction was affirmed. The evidence showed that defendant killed the rabbit in a display of anger arising from the execution of a court; thus, the terms, "[m]alicious", "willful", and "without just cause" are sufficiently specific terms with commonly understood meanings such that enforcement of the statute will not be arbitrary or discriminatory."

Case
MI - Research - Chapter 333. Health. Public Health Code. M.C.L.A. 333.2671 - 2678 MI ST 333.2671 - 2678 This set of Michigan laws proclaims that "[t]he public health and welfare depend on the humane use of animals for the diagnosis and treatment of human and animal diseases." It also creates an animal research advisory board which may regulate and establish standards pursuant to section 2678 controlling the humane use of animals. Further, the department, its representative, or a member of the animal research advisory board may inspect any premises or property on or in which animals are kept for experimental purposes for the purpose of investigation of compliance with board standards. A person shall not keep or use animals for experimental purposes unless registered to do so by the department. Statute
GA - Bite - § 51-2-6. Dogs, liability of owner or keeper for injuries to livestock Ga. Code Ann., § 51-2-6 to 7 GA ST § 51-2-6 to 7 This Georgia statute represents the state's relevant dog bite strict liability law. While the law imposes strict liability for injury to a person, the dog (or other animal) must first be considered "vicious" or "dangerous," which can be as simple as showing the animal was required to be leashed per city ordinance. Second, the animal must be at large by the careless management of the owner. Finally, the person injured must not have provoked the animal into attacking him or her. Statute
Night monkey in a soiled and rusty cage. Slideshow Images

Pages