Results
| Title | Citation | Alternate Citation | Agency Citation | Summary | Type |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| NY - Property, theft - Chapter 69. Of the Consolidated Laws. | McKinney's Agriculture and Markets Law § 366 | NY AGRI & MKTS § 366 | This New York statute provides that it is a crime to steal dogs, defined as: removing the collar, identification tag or any other identification by which the owner may be ascertained from any dog, cat or any other domestic animal; seizing or molesting any dog, while it is being held or led by any person or while it is properly muzzled or wearing a collar with an identification tag attached, except where such action is incidental to the enforcement of some law or regulation; or transporting any dog, not lawfully in his possession, for the purpose of killing or selling such dog. | Statute | |
| MI - Wildlife Conservation -Chapter 324. Natural Resources and Environmental Protection Act. | M. C. L. A. 324.41101 - 41105 | MI ST 324.41101 - 41105 | These sections describe the regulatory powers of the Department of Natural Resources in issuing conservation orders protecting fish, game, and birds. | Statute | |
| Gorman v. Pierce County | 176 Wash. App. 63, 307 P.3d 795 (2013) review denied, 179 Wash. 2d 1010, 316 P.3d 495 (2014) | 2013 WL 4103314 (Wash. Ct. App. 2013) |
After leaving a sliding glass door open for her service dog and her neighbor's dog, the plaintiff in this case was mauled by two pit bulls. Plaintiff sued the dogs' owners under a strict liability statute and the county for negligently responding to prior complaints about the dogs. At trial, a jury not only found all defendants guilty, but also found the plaintiff contributorily negligent. Upon appeal, the court affirmed the judgment the lower court entered based on the jury verdict. Chief Judge Worswick concurred in part and dissented in part. |
Case | |
| Zelman v. Cosentino | 22 A.D.3d 486 (N.Y. 2005) | 803 N.Y.S.2d 652 (2005) |
A repairman was knocked over by a dog while working on a telephone line in the neighbor's yard. The repairman brought claims against the dog's owner under under theories of strict liability and negligence. The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of the dog's owner and the Court of Appeals affirmed. |
Case | |
| Wales - Fur, mink - The Mink Keeping (Prohibition) (Wales) Order 2012 | 2012 No. (W. ) | An Order imposing an absolute prohibition upon the keeping of mink in Wales. | Statute | ||
| US - Marine Mammals - Endangered Fish and Wildlife; Notice of Intent to Prepare an Environmental Impact Statement | 2005 WL 41294 (F.R.) | FR Doc. 05-525 |
NMFS will be preparing an EIS to analyze the potential impacts of applying new criteria in guidelines to determine what constitutes a ``take'' of a marine mammal under the Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA) and Endangered Species Act (ESA) as a result of exposure to anthropogenic noise in the marine environment. This notice describes the proposed action and possible alternatives and also describes the proposed scoping process. |
Administrative | |
| NJ - Disaster - App. A:9-43.15. Emergency evacuation; boarding of public transportation or public transportation service with domestic companion animal | N.J.S.A. App. A:9-43.15 | NJ ST App. A:9-43.15 | This New Jersey law states that in the event that a state of emergency has been declared and an evacuation of any region of the State is in progress, the owner of a domestic companion animal shall be permitted to board any public transportation or public transportation service with the domestic companion animal so long as that animal is under the owner's control by use of a leash or tether, or is properly confined in an appropriate container or by other suitable means, provided that such boarding is authorized by and consistent with the provisions of the State Emergency Operations Plan. Additionally, all passengers with service animals shall be given priority seating on all means of transportation. | Statute | |
| ND - Dogs - Consolidated Dog Laws | NDCC 11-11-14; 20.1-04-12 - 12.2; 20.1-05-02.1; 23-36-01 - 09; 36-21-10 - 11; 40-05-01 -2; 40-05-19; 42-03-01 - 04; 43-29-16.1; 12.1-17-09 | ND ST 11-11-14; 20.1-04-12 - 12.2; 20.1-05-02.1; 23-36-01 - 09; 36-21-10 - 11; 40-05-01 -2; 40-05-19; 42-03-01 - 04; 43-29-16.1; 12.1-17-09 | These statutes comprise North Dakota's dog laws. Among the provisions include municipal powers to regulate dogs, rabies, control laws, provisions that define dogs as a public nuisance, and laws concerning dogs that harass big game or livestock. | Statute | |
| KS - Humane Slaughter - CHAPTER 47.LIVESTOCK AND DOMESTIC ANIMALS. | K. S. A. § 47-1401 to 1405 | KS ST § 47-1401 to 1405 | This Kansas section comprises the state's humane slaughter act. The act first begins with a statement of policy requiring the humane slaughter of all livestock. A humane method is defined as a method whereby the animal is rendered insensible to pain by mechanical, electrical, chemical, or other means that is rapid and effective, before being shackled, hoisted, thrown, cast, or cut.& The law also allows slaughter by a method in accordance with ritual requirements of the Jewish faith or any other religious faith whereby the animal suffers loss of consciousness by anemia of the brain. Any person who violates any provision of this act is guilty of a misdemeanor. | Statute | |
| Miller v. Peraino | 626 A.2d 637 (Pa.Super., 1993) | 426 Pa.Super. 189 (1993) |
The incident generating this dispute after two veterinary assistants claimed that Miller viciously beat plaintiff's dog Nera to death because he was having difficulty getting the dog from the basement recovery room to the waiting area upstairs where the dog would be picked up. The sole issue on this appeal is the dismissal of plaintiff's cause of action for intentional infliction of emotional distress resulting from both the dog's death and the veterinarian's behavior during plaintiff's picketing of his business. Relying on both the Restatement (Second) of Torts and a prior decision inDaughen v. Fox, the court held that intentional infliction of emotional distress cannot legally be founded upon a veterinarian's behavior toward an animal. |
Case |