Results
Displaying 6631 - 6638 of 6638
| Title | Citation | Alternate Citation | Agency Citation | Summary | Type |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| US - CITES Regs - Taking, Possession, Transportation, Sale, Purchase, Barter, Exportation, and Importation of Wildlife and Plant | 50 C.F.R. § 23.1 to 92 |
These regulations describe the purpose of CITES, the criteria for listing in the appendices, and the requirements for importing or exporting protected animals or plants. |
Administrative | ||
| NC - Animal Shelters - § 153A-442. Animal shelters | N.C.G.S.A. § 153A-442 | This North Carolina statute authorizes counties within the state to establish, maintain, and appropriate available funding for animal shelters. The statute also describes the standards that animal shelters in the county should meet. | Statute | ||
| MD - Hunting, Internet - § 10-426. Hunting with guns or devices via Internet connection prohibited | MD Code, Natural Resources, § 10-426 | Md. Nat. Res. Code Ann. § 10-426 | This statute prohibits hunting via the Internet with the state of Maryland. Violation of the statute could result in a misdemeanor conviction, a fine not exceeding $10,000, imprisonment, and hunting license revocation. | Statute | |
| LA - Dangerous - Louisiana Dangerous Dog & Dog Bite Laws | LA R.S. 14:102.12 - 18; L.A. R.S. § 2771 - 2778 | These Louisiana statutory sections provide the state's animal control and dangerous dog laws. A dog becomes dangerous when (1) unprovoked, on two separate occasions within the prior thirty-six-month period, engages in any behavior that requires a defensive action by any person to prevent bodily injury when the person and the dog are off the property of the owner of the dog; (2) any dog which, when unprovoked, bites a person causing an injury; or (3) any dog which, when unprovoked, on two separate occasions within the prior thirty-six-month period, has killed, seriously bitten, inflicted injury, or otherwise caused injury to a domestic animal off the property of the owner of the dog. It is unlawful for any person to own a dangerous dog without properly restraining or confining the dog. Any citizen or officer may kill any dangerous or vicious dog, and no citizen or officer shall be liable for damages or to prosecution by reason of killing any dangerous or vicious dog. The section also provides laws on licensing, vaccination, and prohibitions on dogs running at large. | Statute | ||
| Trautman v. Day | 273 N.W.2d 712 (N.D. 1979) |
In Trautman v. Day, 273 N.W. 2d 712 (N.D. 1979), defendant shot plaintiff’s dog when it ran through defendant’s herd of cows. The court affirmed a verdict of $300 for plaintiff’s dog. In addition, the Court declined to apply the defense of immunity based on a statute concerning the “worrying of livestock. |
Case | ||
| Roberts v. 219 South Atlantic Boulevard, Inc. | 914 So.2d 1108 (Fla. 2005) | 30 Fla. L. Weekly D2704 |
Defendant brought his dog to work with him as the nightclub's maintenance man. As plaintiff walked by defendant's truck, he was bitten by defendant's dog. The plaintiff than sued the nightclub for damages due to the bite. The court granted summary judgment to the defendants stating that the facts of the case did not meet the four prong test that was needed to hold an employer liable for injuries to a third party. |
Case | |
| DC - Cruelty, reporting - § 22-1002.01. Reporting requirements. | DC ST § 22-1002.01 | D.C. Code Ann. § 22-1002.01 | This District of Columbia statute requires that any law enforcement or child protective services employee who knows or has reason to suspect than an animal is experiencing cruelty, abandonment, or neglect shall provide a report of the abuse within the specified time. The statute also states that any employee who observes an animal at the home of a person reasonably suspected of child, adult, or animal abuse should report it. The statute also specifies what information the report must include for completion. | Statute | |
| Gregory v. City of Vallejo, et al. | 63 F.Supp.3d 1171 (E.D. Cal. 2014) | In this case, the plaintiff’s dog was shot by a police officer who was responding to the plaintiff’s call for police assistance in investigating a bank fraud matter. Upon arrival at the home, the officer entered the low-fenced front yard and two of the plaintiff’s dogs approached. The officer, the only eyewitness to the encounter, then shot and killed one of the plaintiff’s dogs. The plaintiff filed suit against the officer and municipality, and alleged, inter alia, violations of her Fourth Amendment rights, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and violations of state statutes. The court held that enough factual issues were disputed to deny the defendants’ motion for summary judgment, specifically that there was a genuine dispute as to whether the killing of the dog was reasonable. | Case |