Results
| Title | Citation | Alternate Citation | Agency Citation | Summary | Type |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| OR - Exotic Pets - Chapter 609. Animal Control; Exotic Animals; Dealers. | O. R. S. § 609.205 - 355 | OR ST § 609.205 - 355 | These Oregon laws concern the regulation of exotic pets in the state. An "exotic animal" for purposes of the section means a member of the family Felidae not indigenous to Oregon (except the domestic cat), any nonhuman primate, any nonwolf member of the family Canidae not indigenous to Oregon (except the domestic dog), any bear except the black bear, and any member of the order Crocodylia. A person may not keep an exotic animal in this state unless the person possesses a valid State Department of Agriculture permit for that animal issued prior to the effective date of this 2009 Act. | Statute | |
| MO - Ordinances - Chapter 77. Third Class Cities | V. A. M. S. 77.590, 79.110, 80.090, 82.300 | MO ST 77.590, 79.110, 80.090, 82.300 | This set of statutes authorizes municipal governments to regulate animals and animal-related nuisances. | Statute | |
| Maloney v. State | 1975 OK CR 22 (Ok. App. 1975) | 1975 OK CR 22 (Ok. App. 1975) |
The State charged defendant with maliciously placing a dog in a pit with another dog and encouraging the dogs to fight, injure, maim, or kill one another. The trial court convicted defendant of cruelty to animals pursuant to Okla. Stat. tit. 21, § 1685 (1971) and fined defendant. Defendant appealed. On appeal, the court held that Okla. Stat. tit. 21, § 1682 (1971) was constitutional as applied to the case but reversed and remanded the case because the court determined that the defendant had been improperly convicted under the anti-cruelty statute rather than the dogfighting statute. |
Case | |
| People v. Minney | 119 N.W. 918 (Mich. 1909) | 155 Mich. 534 (Mich. 1909) |
Defendant was convicted of mutilating the horse of another. He argued on appeal that the trial court's jury instructions, which read that malice toward the owner of the horse was not necessary, were incorrect. The court agreed and found that although the general malice of the law of crime is sufficient to support the offense, the trial court must instruct that malice is an essential element of the offense. |
Case | |
| US - Livestock - Water Availability for Livestock at Slaughter Establishments | 1981 WL 103568 (F.R.) |
On September 12, 1980, the Food Safety and Quality Service requested information on the humane watering needs of livestock. The action was taken in response to industry petitions that questioned a departmental regulation that requires water to be available for animals in holding pens at slaughter establishments. The Agency has determined that the regulations requiring that water be available is holding pens will remain in effect, but notes that compliance with the regulations will not necessarily impose burdensome costs on the industry. |
Administrative | ||
| NV- Rehabilitation, wildlife - Chapter 504. Wildlife Management and Propagation. | NV ADC 504.492 - 498 | NAC 504.490 - 498 | These Nevada regulations are about permits to rehabilitate wildlife. These regulations reveal where an application for a wildlife rehabilitation permit can be obtained, what must be included on the application, where to return the application, the required documents that must also be submitted with the application, the expiration of the permit, and the roles and the responsibilities of the permit holder. Additionally, the following regulations also provide information about euthanizing wildlife that is not listed as endangered or threatened species, as well as how to euthanize a species that is listed as endangered or threatened. | Administrative | |
| NE - Ferret - § 37-526. Ferrets; use or possession prohibited, when; violation; penalty | Neb.Rev.St. § 37-526 | NE ST § 37-526 | This Nebraska statute states that it shall be unlawful to hunt rabbits, squirrels, or any fur-bearing animal with or by the aid of a ferret. It is also unlawful to have a ferret in one's possession or control in a field or forest or in any vehicle going to or from hunting territory. Any person violating this section shall be guilty of a Class III misdemeanor and shall be fined at least fifty dollars. | Statute | |
| AR - Facility Dog - § 16-43-1002. Certified facility dogs for child witnesses | Ark. Code Ann. § 16-43-1002 | A.C.A. § 16-43-1002 | This statute deals with the use of certified facility dogs for child witnesses and vulnerable witnesses (a person testifying in a criminal hearing or trial who has an intellectual and developmental disability or has a significant impairment in cognitive functioning acquired as a direct consequence of a brain injury or resulting from a progressively deteriorating neurological condition, including without limitation Alzheimer's disease or dementia). In order to qualify as a certified facility dog, a dog must graduate from an assistance dog organization after receiving at least 2 years of training and passing the same public service access test as a service dog. | Statute | |
| NM - Dog Bite - Chapter 77. Animals and Livestock. | N. M. S. A. 1978, § 77-1-6 | NM ST § 77-1-6 | This short New Mexico statute provides that state health department shall prescribe regulations for the reporting of animal bites, confinement and disposition of rabies-suspect animals, rabies quarantine and the disposition of dogs and cats exposed to rabies, in the interest of public health and safety. | Statute | |
| ME - Equine Liability - Chapter 743. Equine Activities | 7 M. R. S. A. § 4101 - 4104-A | ME ST T. 7 § 4101 - 4104-A | This act stipulates that an equine sponsor, equine professional, or any other person engaged in an equine activity, is immune from liability for the death or injury of a participant, as well as property damage, which resulted from the inherent risks of equine activities. However, there are exceptions to this rule: a person will be held liable for injuries of an equine activity participant if he or she displays a willful and wanton or intentional disregard for the safety of the participant and if he or she fails to make reasonable and prudent efforts in ensuring the safety of the participant. In addition, a person will also be held liable for the injury of an equine activity participant if he or she is injured on the land or at a facility due to a dangerous latent condition of which was known to the equine sponsor, professional or other person. | Statute |