Results
| Title | Citation | Alternate Citation | Summary | Type |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Hawaiian Crow (Alala) v. Lujan | 906 F.Supp. 549 (D.Hawaii,1991) |
Defendants (USFWS and rancher owners) filed a motion to dismiss the 'Alala bird and strike its name from the plaintiffs' complaint as well a motion for Rule 11 sanctions. The District Court held that, as a matter of first impression, the endangered 'Alala bird was not a 'person' within the meaning of the Endangered Species Act's (ESA) citizen suit provision. However, the Court declined to impose Rule 11 sanctions on the ground that plaintiffs' counsel acted improperly in filing a complaint that named the ‘Alala as a party, finding that there is no evidence plaintiffs named the ‘Alala for an improper purpose. Defendant's motion for a more definite statement was granted to provide greater specificity to pinpoint those areas within the essential habitat locations that may be affected. |
Case | |
| Map of Private Exotic Pet Ownership Laws | The above map details states that ban, partially ban, require licensure, or provide miscellaneous regulations on private ownership of wild or exotic animals. Currently, 20 states have what can be called "comprehensive bans." These bans typically classify wild cats, large non-domesticated carnivores, reptiles, and non-human primates as "dangerous animals" or otherwise prohibit private ownership of these species. These laws may outright ban the ownership of wild or exotic animals as pets or only allow those animals to be kept under certain licenses not including pet or private possession (i.e., for educational or scientific purposes). Thirteen (13) states have partial bans on exotic pets, which means that these states ban specific, listed animals by statute, but not all non-traditional, non-domestic animals (for example, these states may allow ownership of small primates). Fourteen (14) states permit private ownership of exotic animals under a licensure or permit scheme. People seeking licenses may have to register with the state, prove satisfactory conditions for the keeping of such animals, pay a fee, and maintain liability insurance. The remaining three (3) states do not have a statutory or regulatory scheme that directly addresses or controls the private ownership of exotic pets, but may regulate some aspect of ownership. These states may require health certificates or import permits for such animals. For more discussion on exotic pet laws, see our Topical Introduction. | State map | ||
| MA - Police animals - 9A Emergency treatment of police dogs | M.G.L.A. 111C § 9A | MA ST 111C § 9A | This 2022 Massachusetts law mandates that EMS personnel provide emergency treatment to a police dog injured in the line of duty and transport such police dog by ambulance to a veterinary care facility equipped to provide emergency treatment to dogs. EMS personnel shall not transport an injured police dog if providing such transport would inhibit their ability to provide emergency medical attention or transport to a person requiring such services. The law also outlines training for EMS personnel in treating police dogs. | Statute |
| Dancy v. State | 287 So. 3d 931 (Miss. 2020) | 2020 WL 240457 (Miss. Jan. 16 , 2020) | The Justice Court of Union County found Michael Dancy guilty of three counts of animal cruelty and ordered the permanent forfeiture of Dancy’s six horses, four cats, and three dogs. Dancy appealed to the circuit court. The circuit court ordered that the animals be permanently forfeited and found Dancy guilty. The circuit court also ordered Dancy to pay $39,225 for care and boarding costs for the horses. Dancy subsequently appealed to the Supreme Court of Mississippi. Essentially, Dancy failed to provide adequate shelter, food, and water for the animals. The Court found that the circuit court properly released the animals to an animal protection organization. The Court also found that the reimbursement order was permissible. Two of Dancy’s three convictions were for violations of the same statute regarding simple cruelty, one for his four cats and one for his three dogs. The Court held that, according to the statute's plain language, Dancy’s cruelty to a combination of dogs and cats occurring at the same time "shall constitute a single offense." Thus, the State cannot punish Dancy twice for the same offense without violating his right against double jeopardy. For that reason, the court vacated Dancy’s second conviction of simple cruelty. The court affirmed the permanent forfeiture and reimbursement order and his other cruelty conviction. | Case |
| Mann v. Regan | 948 A.2d 1075 (Conn.App.2008) | 108 Conn.App. 566, 2008 WL 2446592 (Conn.App.) |
The plaintiff (Mann) brought this action to recover damages for injuries she sustained to her face when she was bitten by a dog owned by the defendant (Regan). The incident occurred when the defendant’s dog was being cared for by the plaintiff at her house while the defendant traveled out of state. With regard to defendant's tacit admission challenge, this court found that defendant’s silence in response to her daughter’s statement, “Well, mom, you know he bit you,” was within the trial court’s discretion to admit as a hearsay exception. As to the jury instructions, this court was not persuaded that there is a meaningful distinction between the words “vicious” and “dangerous” as used in the context of an action stemming from a dog bite. |
Case |
| Dziekan v. Gaynor | 376 F.Supp.2d 267 (D. Ct. 2005) |
The plaintiff brought civil rights action against municipality and police officer after officer shot and killed his pet dog. Specifically, he alleged a violation of his substantive due process and Fourth Amendment rights, and the negligent and intentional infliction of emotional distress. On the defendants' motion for summary judgment the court held that the shooting and killing of pet dog was not unreasonable seizure, and the officer was entitled to qualified immunity. |
Case | |
| GA - Dogfighting - Article 2. Gambling and Related Offenses. | Ga. Code Ann., § 16-12-37 | GA ST § 16-12-37 | Georgia's dogfighting statute states that any person who owns, possesses, trains, transports, or sells any dog with the intent that such dog shall be engaged in fighting with another dog, wagers money or anything of value on the result of such dogfighting, knowingly permits dogfighting on his or her premises, knowingly promotes or advertises an exhibition of fighting commits the offense of dogfighting. Violation of the law is a felony, with a mandatory fine of $5,000.00 or a mandatory fine of $5,000.00 in addition to imprisonment for not less than one year nor more than five years. On a second or subsequent conviction, such person shall be punished by imprisonment of not less than one nor more than ten years, a fine of not less than $15,000.00, or both such fine and imprisonment. Any person who is knowingly present only as a spectator at any place for the fighting of dogs shall, upon a first conviction thereof, be guilty of a misdemeanor of a high and aggravated nature. | Statute |
| CA - Hunting - Article 2.5. Hunter's Safety. | West's Ann. Cal. Fish & G. Code § 3049 - 3055.1 | CA FISH & G § 3049 -3055.1 | The Legislature of California in these sections finds and declares that individuals who engage in hunting should possess an adequate understanding of hunter safety practices, principles of conservation, and sportsmanship. In order to achieve these goals, hunters must procure a license and complete a course in hunter safety. | Statute |
| NV - Leash Law - Chapter 503. Hunting, Fishing and Trapping; Miscellaneous Protective Measures | N.R.S. 503.631, 636 | NV ST 503.631, 636 | This Nevada statute makes it illegal to permit such dog to run at large if such dog is actively tracking, pursuing, harassing, attacking or killing any wildlife in a state-owned wildlife management area. | Statute |
| Burkholder v. Department of Agriculture | 265 A.3d 863 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 2021) | In this Pennsylvania case, James Burkholder, d/b/a Whispering Spring Kennel (Burkholder), petitioned for review of an adjudication of the Secretary of Agriculture (Secretary) that imposed a $19,500 civil penalty on Burkholder for transferring two dogs in excess of the annual limit under his Class IV kennel license in December of 2017. Burkholder raises two arguments: first, the Dog Law does not specify that transfers of more than 60 dogs by a private kennel constitute violations; and two, the penalty imposed is excessive and unreasonable. This court first noted that a Kennel Class IV license clearly does not allow him to transfer more than 60 dogs and thus any transfers in excess violate the Dog Law. As to the excessive penalty argument, the court first examined the distinction between separate and ongoing violations of the Dog Law because it raised a question of first impression under the Dog Law. Relying on the distinction in other contexts, particularly regarding penalties imposed by the Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission (PUC), the court found that a kennel owner holding too many dogs could remedy the violation simply by transferring the excess dogs. The problem here is that, where an owner has transferred more dogs than his license allows, there is no way to correct the violation. Thus, said the court, a per-day fine is improper. "Each unauthorized transfer of a single dog is a single violation of the Dog Law, not a continuing violation, because it is not ongoing in nature and such transfers can be feasibly segregated into discrete violations so as to impose separate penalties." The court concluded that the Department erred as a matter of law by imposing ongoing penalties for two discrete unauthorized transfers. The order of the Department as to the excess transfers of dogs was affirmed, but the portion as to the amount of the penalty was vacated. The matter was remanded for further proceedings. | Case |