Results
| Title | Citation | Alternate Citation | Agency Citation | Summary | Type |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ND - Hunting - Chapter 20.1-01. General Provisions. | NDCC 20.1-01-31 | ND ST 20.1-01-31 | This law reflects North Dakota's hunter harassment provision. Under the law, no person may intentionally interfere with the lawful taking of wildlife on public or private land by another or intentionally harass, drive, or disturb any wildlife on public or private land for the purpose of disrupting a lawful hunt. Also, no person may remove with or tamper with a legally set trap. This section does not apply to any incidental interference arising from lawful activity by public or private land users or to landowners or operators interfering with hunters on land owned or operated by that individual. | Statute | |
| KS - Abandon - Chapter 47. Livestock and Domestic Animals. | K. S. A. 47-835 | KS ST § 47-835 | This Kansas statute provides that any animal placed in the custody of a licensed veterinarian that is unclaimed by its owner for a period of more than ten (10) days after written notice by registered or certified mail is given, shall be deemed to be abandoned and may be turned over to the nearest humane society, or dog pound or disposed of as the custodian may deem proper. The giving of notice to the owner of record immunizes the veterinarian from liability. | Statute | |
| Commonwealth v. Gardner | 74 Pa. D. & C. 539 (Pa. 1950) |
In this Pennsylvania case, a new resident moved next door to a woman who had been operating a kennel for years. He then complained to the borough council which then amended an ordinance such that the keeping of more than six dogs over six months of age was made a nuisance per se, illegal and a violation of the ordinance. The court held that it did not believe that the borough council or the court had the power or the authority to determine that more than a certain number is a nuisance per se, and less than that number is a nuisance only upon proof of the same being a nuisance. "In other words, it is our opinion that the borough council, in the exercise of its police power may not unreasonably and arbitrarily prohibit things which were not nuisances at common law, and their declaration in an ordinance that a thing is a public nuisance does not make it so, if it is not a nuisance in fact . . ." |
Case | ||
| State v. Shook | 2003 WL 347575 |
This is the Montana Supreme Court's denial of appellant Shook's petition for rehearing in State v. Shook, 313 Mont. 347 (2002). |
Case | ||
| England and Wales - Hunting, mammals - Hunting Act 2004 | 2004 CHAPTER 37 | An Act controlling the hunting of wild animals with dogs, and prohibiting hare coursing. The hare coursing prohibition covers facilitating, attending, spectating or otherwise. Schedule 1 of the Act provides for exemptions to hunting wild mammals with dogs, to include: stalking, or flushing a wild mammal out of cover provided that this is done to prevent or reduce potential damage elsewhere, for example to livestock or crops; to obtain meat for human or animal consumption or; participation in a field trial competition. For this hunting to be exempt, the stalking or flushing must not involve more than two dogs, or take place on land without the owner’s permission. Further exemption requirements are that one dog may go below ground only, to flush or dig out the mammal in circumstances where the purpose is to prevent or reduce serious damage to game birds or wild birds. Further, conditions require that the mammal must subsequently be shot as soon as possible after being found or flushed. Other exceptions include the hunting of rabbits or rats with dogs. | Statute | ||
| MI - Research - Chapter 333. Health. Public Health Code. | M.C.L.A. 333.2671 - 2678 | MI ST 333.2671 - 2678 | This set of Michigan laws proclaims that "[t]he public health and welfare depend on the humane use of animals for the diagnosis and treatment of human and animal diseases." It also creates an animal research advisory board which may regulate and establish standards pursuant to section 2678 controlling the humane use of animals. Further, the department, its representative, or a member of the animal research advisory board may inspect any premises or property on or in which animals are kept for experimental purposes for the purpose of investigation of compliance with board standards. A person shall not keep or use animals for experimental purposes unless registered to do so by the department. | Statute | |
| US - Eagles - § 83.7 Mandatory criteria for Federal acknowledgment. | 67 FR 44347 |
[Regulation removed 2010. Summary of former text provided.] This provision describes the mandatory criteria for establishing the existence of an American Indian tribe for purposes of recognition by the federal government. These criteria implicate federal status for purposes of acquiring eagle parts for use in Indian religious ceremonies under the BGEPA. |
Administrative | ||
| GA - Bite - § 51-2-6. Dogs, liability of owner or keeper for injuries to livestock | Ga. Code Ann., § 51-2-6 to 7 | GA ST § 51-2-6 to 7 | This Georgia statute represents the state's relevant dog bite strict liability law. While the law imposes strict liability for injury to a person, the dog (or other animal) must first be considered "vicious" or "dangerous," which can be as simple as showing the animal was required to be leashed per city ordinance. Second, the animal must be at large by the careless management of the owner. Finally, the person injured must not have provoked the animal into attacking him or her. | Statute | |
| Evans v. Craig | 807 N.Y.S.2d 417 (2006) | 25 A.D.3d 582, 807 N.Y.S.2d 417, 2006 N.Y. Slip Op. 00331 (2006) |
A postal worker brought an action against dog owners to recover for injuries allegedly sustained when dog jumped on her while she was delivering mail to the owners' home. In affirming the denial of defendant’s motion for summary judgment, the court found that there factual issues as to whether the owners were aware of the potential danger from the dog and whether they took reasonable measures to prevent the dog from jumping on the plaintiff. |
Case | |
| Gonzales v. Kissner | 24 So.3d 214 ((La.App. 1 Cir.,2009) | 2009 WL 3029621 (La.App. 1 Cir.), 2008-2154 (La.App. 1 Cir. 9/11/09) |
This Louisiana case concerns an action for personal injuries sustained by an animal control officer who was mauled about the head and neck by defendants' dog while investigating a complaint of an attack by the dog from the previous day. The dog's owners argued on appeal that the trial court failed to apply the Professional Rescuer's Doctrine, sometimes referred to as the “fireman's rule." Because under the facts here, where the dog had previously escaped after being confined in the house and the defendants failed to properly lock the house and/or restrain the dog, the court did not find that Ms. Gonzales' recovery for injuries was barred by the Professional Rescuer's Doctrine. The court held that based upon the record before this court, there was no error on the part of the trial court that warranted reversal of the plaintiff's motion for a partial summary judgment as to the liability of the dog's owners. |
Case |