Results

Displaying 5871 - 5880 of 6592
Title Citation Alternate Citation Summary Type
VA - Ordinance - § 3.2-6587. Unlawful acts; penalties Va. Code Ann. § 3.2-6587 VA ST § 3.2-6587 This Virginia statute describes the unlawful acts related to pets that will constitute Class 4 misdemeanors. Included are furnishing a false license application, failing to pay license tax, violating a leash or rabies ordinance, not disposing of dead companion animals per statute, and improperly concealing a pet. Also, a Class 1 misdemeanor may be imposed for falsely impersonating a humane officer or for falsifying a claim for animal damage. Statute
U.S. v. Thirty-Eight Golden Eagles 649 F.Supp. 269 (D. Nev. 1986)

Defendant appeals a civil forfeiture action under the BGEPA.  In applying the three-part Callahan test to defendant's free exercise claim, the court holds that while defendant's religious exercise is substantially burdened, the government has a compelling interest in protecting a rare species and effectuates this interest in the least restrictive means.  The court declines to consider defendant's free exercise challenge to the permit process, as defendant failed to apply for a permit and thus lacks standing.  For further discussion on religious challenges to the BGEPA by Native Americans, see Detailed Discussion of Eagle Act .

Case
OK - Wildlife - § 5-601. Wildlife breeders' sale and transportation of wildlife; tags for selling; invoices; records 29 Okl. St. Ann. § 5-601 - 602 OK ST T. 29 § 5-601 This Oklahoma statute permits all licensed wildlife breeders to sell and transport any live wildlife for propagation purposes as well as to sell and transport live or dead wildlife for food upon compliance with certain requirements. Statute
OH - Ordinance - 955.221 County, township, and municipal corporation ordinances to control dogs R.C. § 955.221 OH ST § 955.221 This Ohio statute provides that a board of county commissioners, board of township trustees, municipal corporation may adopt and enforce resolutions to control dogs that are not otherwise in conflict with any other provision of the Revised Code. These ordinances or resolutions to control dogs include, but are not limited to, ordinances or resolutions concerned with the ownership, keeping, or harboring of dogs, the restraint of dogs, dogs as public nuisances, and dogs as a threat to public health, safety, and welfare, except that such ordinances or resolutions shall not prohibit the use of any dog which is lawfully engaged in hunting or training for the purpose of hunting while accompanied by a licensed hunter. Statute
EU - Transport - 2004/544/EC: Council Decision on the signing of the European Convention for the protection of animals during in 2004/544/EC

This Council Decision directs the signing the of the European Convention for the protection of animals during international transport.

Statute
Saulsbury v. Wilson --- S.E.2d ----, 2019 WL 493695 (Ga. Ct. App. Feb. 8, 2019) This Georgia involves an interlocutory appeal arising from a dog bite lawsuit. In 2016, Plaintiff Saulsbury was walking her English Bulldog past Defendant Wilson's house when Wilson's pitbull dog escaped its crate in the open garage. A fight ensued between the dogs. Wilson then attempted to break up the fight and was allegedly bitten by Saulsbury's dog, suffering a broken arm in the process and necessitating a course of rabies shots. The Saulsburys then sued the Wilsons in magistrate court to recover hospital and veterinary expenses. Wilson counterclaimed for her injuries in excess $15,000, thus transferring the case to superior court. At this time, the Saulsburys moved for summary judgment, which the trial court denied. The Court of Appeals here reverses that denial. The court found that Wilson assumed the risk when she intervened in a dog fight with her bare hands. In particular, the court observed that assumption of risk serves as a complete defense to negligence. That finding was bolstered by the fact that Wilson had knowledge that her dog had previously bitten other persons and had admitted to breaking up previous dog fights with a stick. The court relied on previous case law showing that all animals, even domesticated animals, pose a risk as does the act of breaking up even human fights. The court was not persuaded by the fact that Saulsbury may have been in violation of various DeKalb County ordinances related to an owner's responsibility to control his or her animal. A plain reading of those ordinances does not impose a duty on the part of an owner to "dangerously insert herself into a dog fight." The court found the lower court erred in denying the Saulsbury's motion for summary judgment and reversed and remanded the case. Case
McBride v. XYZ Ins. 935 So.2d 326 (La.App. 2 Cir. 2006) 2006 WL 1751771 (La.App. 2 Cir.), 41,129 (La.App. 2 Cir. 6/28/06)

In this Louisiana dog bite case, a guest individually and on behalf of child brought an action against the dog owner to recover for bites.  The child's bites occurred while the guest and her child were visiting defendant's home after the child had been petting and hugging the dog (a fairly large Chow).  The appellate court held that the adult guest's conduct of swatting the dog with a shoe after the dog had released the child's arm was not provocation and the defendant was strictly liable for the injuries.  While the district court reasoned that the guest failed to use reasonable caution in reading the warning signs and provoked the dog by striking him after he had already released the child, this court found that the guest and her children entered the yard through the house, and she did not notice the signs. Moreover, both witnesses testified that events unfolded very fast; the record persuaded the court that Ms. McBride's conduct in swatting Smokey with a shoe was not an intentional provocation but a natural and inevitable reaction to seeing her child's arm in the dog's jaws.  

Case
Cetacean Community v. Bush 386 F.3d 1169 (9th Cir. 2004) 59 ERC 1257, 34 Envtl. L. Rep. 20,120, 4 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 9331, 2004 Daily Journal D.A.R. 12,791

In this case, the court was asked to decide whether the world's cetaceans have standing to bring suit in their own name under the Endangered Species Act, the Marine Mammal Protection Act, the National Environmental Protection Act, and the Administrative Procedure Act.  The Cetaceans challenge the United States Navy's use of Surveillance Towed Array Sensor System Low Frequency Active Sonar ("SURTASS LFAS") during wartime or heightened threat conditions.  In finding that the Cetaceans lacked standing, the court here agreed with the district court in Citizens to End Animal Suffering & Exploitation, Inc., that "[i]f Congress and the President intended to take the extraordinary step of authorizing animals as well as people and legal entities to sue, they could, and should, have said so plainly." 836 F.Supp. at 49.  In the absence of any such statement in the ESA, the MMPA, or NEPA, or the APA, the court concluded that the Cetaceans do not have statutory standing to sue.

Case
SD - Lost Property - Chapter 43-41. Lost and Found Property. SDCL § 43-41-1 - 11 SD ST § 43-41-1 - 11 These statutes comprise South Dakota's lost property provisions. Statute
AZ - Assistance Animal - Arizona's Assistance Animal/Guide Dog Laws A. R. S. § 11-1008; § 11-1024, § 13-2910; § 9-500.32 AZ ST § 11-1008; § 11-1024, § 13-2910, § 9-500.32 The following statutes comprise the state's relevant assistance animal and service animal laws. Statute

Pages