Results
| Title | Citation | Alternate Citation | Summary | Type |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| MI - Natural Resources -Chapter 324. Natural Resources and Environmental Protection Act. Natural Resources and Environmental Pro | MCL 324.1101 -1102 | MI ST 324.1101 - MI ST 324.1102 | These sections describe the ability of courts and the Commission to review the Department of Natural Resources decisions and the ability for the public to circulate and sign petitions. | Statute |
| FL - Hunting - Chapter 379. Fish and Wildlife Conservation. | West's F. S. A. § 379.105 | FL ST § 379.105 | This law represents the state's hunter harassment provision. Under the law, a person may not intentionally, within a publicly or privately owned wildlife management or fish management area or on any state-owned water body, interfere with or attempt to prevent the lawful taking of fish, game, or nongame animals by another or attempt to disturb wildlife or fish to prevent their lawful taking. Any person who violates this section commits a Level Two violation. | Statute |
| Anzalone v. Kragness | 826 N.E.2d 472 (Ill. 2005) | 292 Ill. Dec. 331 (2005) |
A woman whose cat was attacked while being boarded at veterinarian's office brought claims against veterinarian and animal hospital. Trial court dismissed claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress and the Court of Appeals reversed holding dismissal was not warranted. |
Case |
| New Mexico State Game Commission v. Udall | 410 F.2d 1197 (C.A.N.M. 1969) |
The State of New Mexico filed an suit to prevent the U.S. Secretary of the Interior from killing deer in the Carlsbad Caverns National Park that were overbrowsing vegetation and posing a threat to the park's ecology without first having obtained the necessary state permit. The Court held that the Secretary has the authority to kill the deer to protect the park property, and it is immaterial that the United States does not have exclusive jurisdiction over the lands within Carlsbad Caverns National Park as it has constitutional authority in the form of supervisory powers to manage national parks. To New Mexico and the other states involved in an amicus capacity in the suit, the real concern was over the federal encroachment into state management of fish and game, particularly in those states where much of the land is under federal control. |
Case | |
| Animal & Natural Resource Law Review Volume XVII |
Published by the students of Michigan State University College of LawAnimal & Natural Resource Law ReviewVol. |
Policy | ||
| IN - Equine Activity Statute - Chapter 5. Equine Activities | I.C. 34-31-5-1 to 5 | IN ST 34-31-5-1 to 5 | This Indiana statute states that an equine activity sponsor or equine professional is not liable for an injury to a participant or the death of a participant resulting from an inherent risk of equine activities. Liability is not limited by this statute where the equine professional knowingly provided faulty tack or equipment, failed to make reasonable and prudent efforts to determine the ability of the participant to engage safely in the equine activity, owns or otherwise is in lawful possession of the land or facilities upon which the participant sustained injuries because of a known, dangerous latent condition, or if he or she commits an act or omission that constitutes reckless disregard for the safety of the participant or intentionally injures the participant. The statute also requires the visible displaying of warning signs or warnings provided in contracts that alert participants to the limitation of liability by law. | Statute |
| CO - Impoundment - Article 15. Regulation Under Police Power. | C. R. S. A. § 30-15-104 | CO ST § 30-15-104 | This Colorado statute immunizes the board of county commissioners or other local governing entity from liability associated with the impoundment of pet animals. Specifically, it states the board or anyone authorized to enforce a local ordinance shall not be held responsible for any accident or subsequent disease that may occur to the animal in connection with the administration of the resolution or ordinance. | Statute |
| Porter v. DiBlasio | 93 F.3d 301 (Wis.,1996) |
Nine horses were seized by a humane society due to neglect of a care taker without giving the owner, who lived in another state, notice or an opportunity for a hearing. The owner filed a section 1983 suit against the humane society, the county, a humane officer and the district attorney that alleged violations of substantive and procedural due process, conspiracy, and conversion. The district court dismissed the claims for failure to state a viable claim. On appeal, the court found that the owner had two viable due process claims, but upheld the dismissal for the others. |
Case | |
| O'Neill v. Louisville/Jefferson County Metro Government | 662 F.3d 723 (C.A.6 (Ky.), 2011) | 2011 WL 5345409 (C.A.6 (Ky.)) |
Dog owners sued city-county government and director of city animal-control agency under § 1983 for violations of Fourteenth Amendment after a warrantless search of home and seizure of their dogs. The Court of Appeals held that the owners did not need a breeder's license because their home was not a “Class A kennel.” It also held that the initial entry into owners' home by undercover animal-control officers was not a Fourth Amendment search because it did not infringe on owners' expectation of privacy. However, the consent-once-removed doctrine did not allow uniformed animal-control officers to enter home without a warrant. |
Case |
| R v D.L. | R. v. D.L., 1999 ABPC 41 | In R v D.L. (1999 ABPC 41) the phrase “wilfully and without lawful excuse” found in s.446 was at issue. In this case, two individuals were charged under s. 445(a) s.446 (1)(a) for killing a cat after the cats’ owner told them to “get rid of it” which they took to mean kill it. The judge in this case found that having permission to kill an animal was not a sufficient “lawful excuse” and did not lawfully give the authority to cause unnecessary pain and suffering to the animal. The accused was found not guilty on count 1 and guilty on count 2. | Case |