Results
| Title | Citation | Alternate Citation | Agency Citation | Summary | Type |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| IA - Ottumwa - Breed - ARTICLE IV. - DANGEROUS ANIMALS (Pit Bull Ordinance) | OTTUMWA, IA., CODE OF ORDINANCES §§ 7-61 - 7-66 (2011) |
In Ottumwa, Iowa, no person shall keep, shelter, or harbor pit bull terriers, with exceptions, because they are deemed to be dangerous. A violation is a simple misdemeanor resulting in a minimum fine of $100. The prohibition does not apply to dogs participating in a dog show (if properly restrained) or being treated at a veterinary hospital.
|
Local Ordinance | ||
| Commonwealth v. Whitson | 151 N.E.3d 455 (2020) | 97 Mass.App.Ct. 798, 2020 WL 3635941 (2020) | This case involves an appeal of an animal cruelty conviction after defendant repeatedly stabbed a dog named Smokey, a three-year old pit bull. The incident in question occurred on a street outside of defendant's barber shop. Smokey was on-leash walking with his owner when an unleashed smaller dog ran at Smokey and began biting his ankles. Smokey responded playfully, not aggressively. The defendant responded to calls of assistance from the smaller dog's owner and helped separate the dogs. After this, the defendant returned briefly to his barbershop and came back with a knife that he used to repeatedly stab Smokey with while he restrained the dog with his other arm. The police eventually responded and defendant was taken to the hospital for a laceration on his hand where he yelled, "I'm glad I killed the [expletive] dog." Smokey survived the attack and defendant was charged and convicted. On appeal, defendant raised several arguments challenging the verdict. In particular, the defendant challenges the sufficiency of the evidence, arguing that he stabbed Smokey repeatedly to release the dog from biting his hand. The appellate court found that no defense witnesses testified that Smokey bit defendant and the no medical records corroborated defendant's version of events. Defendant also argued that the judged erred in denying his motion in limine regarding Smokey prior and subsequent "bad acts," which, defendant claimed, were relevant to the issue of Smokey as the initial aggressor. This court found that the proffered evidence of bad acts was inadmissible hearsay and the acts subsequent to Smokey's stabbing occurred too remotely to have any probative value. Finally, the court found no substantial risk of a miscarriage of justice where the judge failed to give a sua sponte necessity defense. The judgment was affirmed. | Case | |
| WV - Exotic Pet - § 20-2-51. Permit for keeping pets; § 20-2-52. Permits for roadside menageries | W. Va. Code, § 20-2-51; W. Va. Code, § 20-2-52 | WV ST § 20-2-51; WV ST § 20-2-52 | This West Virginia statute provides that the state fish and game director may issue a permit to a person to keep and maintain in captivity as a pet, a wild animal acquired from a commercial dealer or during the legal open season. The fee is charged is two dollars. | Statute | |
| The Nonhuman Rights Project, Inc. on behalf of Tommy, Petitioners, v. Patrick C. Lavery, individually and as an officer of Circl |
This set of pleadings is from the Nonhuman Rights Project (NhRP). The NhRP filed the first-ever lawsuit on behalf of captive chimpanzees in New York. The suit includes a petition for a writ of habeas corpus, demanding that the chimps be released from private captivity to a sanctuary that is part of the North American Primate Sanctuary Alliance (NAPSA). In 2014, the petitioners sought review at the New York Court of Appeals. |
Pleading | |||
| Ford v. Wiley | 23 QBD 203 |
A farmer who had caused the horns of his cattle to be sawn off, a procedure which had caused great pain, was liable to conviction for cruelty. For an operation causing pain to be justifiable, it had to be carried out in pursuit of a legitimate aim that could not reasonably be attained through less painful means, and the pain inflicted had to be proportionate to the objective sought. The mere fact that the defendant believed that the procedure was necessary did not remove him from liability to conviction if, judged according to the circumstances that he believed to exist, his actions were not objectively justifiable. |
Case | ||
| NV - Invasive - 503.597. Introduction or removal of aquatic life or wildlife | N. R. S. 503.597 | NV ST 503.597 | This Nevada law is aimed at aquatic invasive and injurious species. It states that, except as provided, it is unlawful, except by the written consent and approval, for any person at any time to receive, bring, or remove from one stream or body of water in this State to any other, or from one portion of the State to any other, or to any other state, any aquatic life or wildlife, or any spawn, eggs or young of any of them. A person who knowingly or intentionally introduces or attempts to introduce an aquatic invasive species or injurious aquatic species into any waters of this State is guilty of a misdemeanor for a first offense, and a category E felony for subsequent offenses. Additionally, a person convicted must pay a civil penalty of at least $25,000 but not more than $250,000, which is deposited into the Wildlife Account in the State General Fund to fight aquatic invasive species. | Statute | |
| MD - Emergency - § 5-614. Veterinary aid, care or assistance | MD Code, Courts and Judicial Proceedings, § 5-614 | MD CTS & JUD PRO § 5-614 | This Maryland law provides that certain individuals including veterinarians, licensed medical providers, first responders, volunteer fire fighters, and designated local government employees who are responding to a call in the community are not civilly liable for any act or omission in giving any veterinary aid, care, or assistance to an animal where the owner or custodian of the animal is not available to grant permission. Certain requirements must be met per subsection (b) for immunity from civil liability. | Statute | |
| AL - Importation - Chapter 80-3-6. Livestock Sanitary Rules | AL ADC 80-3-6-..22, .23, and .24 | Ala. Admin. Code r. 80-3-6-.22, .23, and .24 | These selected regulations concern import, transport, or exhibition of wild, semi-wild, and exotic animals, and the import of dogs and cats. | Administrative | |
| 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 | |
| MI - Muskegon Heights - Breed - Pit Bull Ban | MUSKEGON HEIGHTS, MI., CODE OF ORDINANCES §§ 14-1 - 14-9 (2006) |
In Muskegon Heights, Michigan, it is prohibited to own, keep, or harbor any dangerous animal, including pit bull, with exceptions for exhibition, veterinary treatment, security, etc, Pit bulls must be properly confined or kept on a leash and muzzle. the owner must post a "Beware of Dog" sign and keep liability insurance of $50,000. Failure to comply is a misdemeanor. |
Local Ordinance |