Results
| Title | Citation | Alternate Citation | Summary | Type |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| FL - Endangered Species - Chapter 379. Fish and Wildlife Conservation. | West's F. S. A. § 379.411 | FL ST § 379.411 (Renumbered as 379.411 by Laws 2008, c. 2008-247, § 178, eff. July 1, 2008) | This statute prohibits the intentional killing or wounding of any animal, or the eggs or nest of any animal, listed as threatened, endangered, or of special concern, making it a Level Four violation under s. 379.401. The bald eagle has been designated under this provision. | Statute |
| In re Molly | 712 N.W.2d 567 (Minn.App.,2006) |
In this Minnesota case, the appellant challenges the district court's order designating his dog a "dangerous dog" under Minn.Stat. § 347.50, subd. 2(2) (2004). The appellate court held that the city lacked authority to bring action to enforce non-self-executing statutory provision concerning dangerous dogs. While the city of Arden Hills argues that the legislature, in section 347.53, gives cities "the power to enforce the dangerous dog statute, section 347.53 authorizes cities to "regulate potentially dangerous dogs," a statutory category expressly separate from and exclusive of "dangerous dogs." The court stated that the issue is whether Arden Hills may enforce the statute without first adopting it or promulgating procedures for its enforcement. Further, while it is undisputed that Scooter was badly injured by Molly during the attack, she was not dead then or upon arrival at the veterinary clinic. The owners undertook the decision to euthanize rather than treat the injured dog. |
Case | |
| IN - Cattle Slaughter - THE MAHARASHTRA ANIMAL PRESERVATION ACT, 1976 | 9 of 1977 | The Act, specific to the western Indian state of Maharashtra, prohibits cow slaughter. Persons may also not slaughter other bovines such as bulls, bullocks, female buffaloes and buffalo calves without obtaining a certificate from the 'competent authority'. These animals may be slaughtered only at specified places. Committing an offence under the Act may lead to fines or imprisonment. | Statute | |
| New York City Friends of Ferrets v. City of New York | 876 F. Supp. 529 (S.D.N.Y. 1995) |
New York City Friends of Ferrets, an unincorporated association of individuals in New York City who own or wish to own ferrets as household pets, bring this action challenging the legality of the City of New York's prohibition against the keeping of ferrets within the City limits and the requirement that in any case where a ferret is reported to have bitten a human being, the ferret be immediately surrendered to the New York City Department of Health and humanely destroyed in order to conduct a rabies examination. The district court granted the city's summary judgment motion, and dismissed the ferret owners' equal protection claim. The court found a rational relationship between the city's ferret ban and its legitimate interest in protecting human safety. |
Case | |
| LA - Reptiles - § 632.5.1. Constrictors and poisonous snakes | LSA-R.S. 56:632.5.1 | LA R.S. 56:632.5.1 | This Louisiana law provides that certain species of constrictor snakes in excess of eight feet long and venomous snakes shall only be allowed by permit issued by the Department of Wildlife and Fisheries except for animals kept by animal sanctuaries, zoos, aquariums, wildlife research centers, scientific organizations, and medical research facilities as defined in the Animal Welfare Act. Violation of the provisions of this Section or rules adopted pursuant thereto shall constitute a class three violation. | Statute |
| Donations |
Donations This site is a public library that requires considerable resources to keep current and to grow. Your donations to the site would be greatly appreciated. A gift to the Web Center may be eligible for tax deductibility. |
Basic page | ||
| US - Tuna Fishing - Legislative History of the MMPA (1988) | 1988 WL 169926 |
This legislative history provides the background and section by section analysis of the 1988 amendments to the Marine Mammal Protection Act. As in 1981, the focus of the amendments rests with the mortality of dolphins from the tuna fishing industry. |
Statute | |
| IN - Exotic Pet - Chapter 2. Definitions | I.C. 14-8-2-87 | IN ST 14-8-2-87 | This Indiana statute provides the definition of an exotic mammal, which does not include a feral cat or dog. | Statute |
| CO - Dog Bite - Civil actions against dog owners. | C. R. S. A. § 13-21-124 | CO ST § 13-21-124 | This 2005 Colorado law makes a dog owner strictly liable for dog bites only if the victim of the bite suffers serious bodily injury or death from being bitten by a dog while lawfully on public or private property regardless of the viciousness or dangerous propensities of the dog or the dog owner's knowledge or lack of knowledge of the dog's viciousness or dangerous propensities. Further, the victim is entitled to recover only economic damages (as opposed to noneconomic damages like pain and suffering, inconvenience, etc.) in a civil suit against the dog owner. Also, the statute provides that an owner is not liable where the victim is unlawfully on public or private property; where the victim is on the owner's property and the the property is clearly and conspicuously marked with one or more posted signs stating "no trespassing" or "beware of dog"; where the victim has clearly provoked the dog; where the victim is a veterinary health care worker, dog groomer, humane agency staff person, professional dog handler, trainer, or dog show judge acting in the performance of his or her respective duties; or where the dog is working as a hunting dog, herding dog, farm or ranch dog, or predator control dog on the property of or under the control of the dog's owner. | Statute |
| Morehead v. Deitrich | 932 N.E.2d 1272 (Ind.App.,2010) | 2010 WL 3430525 |
Postal carrier sued landlord for negligence after tenant's dog bit her. The Court of Appeals affirmed summary judgment for defendant, holding that landlord did not have a duty to keep dog from biting postal carrier absent control over the property. |
Case |