Results
Displaying 6091 - 6100 of 6639
| Title | Citation | Alternate Citation | Summary | Type |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| TX - Animal Regulation - § 215.026. Animals at Large | V.T.C.A., Local Government Code § 215.026 | Tex. Loc. Gov't Code Ann. § 215.026 (West) | This statute gives municipalities in the state of Texas to establish and regulate pounds and the running at large of horses, mules, cattle, sheep, swine or goats. The statute also allows municipalities to handle the capture, impounding, and sale of any animal at large that is in violation of this statute. Municipalities may also impose penalties on the owner of the animal that is in violation of the statute. | Statute |
| Wyno v. Lowndes County | 331 Ga. App. 541, 771 S.E.2d 207 (2015), cert. denied (June 15, 2015) | 2015 WL 1318263 (Ga. Ct. App. 2015) | Victim was attacked and killed by her neighbor's dog. Victim's husband, acting individually and as administrator of his wife's estate, brought action against dog owners and several government defendants, whom he alleged failed to respond to earlier complaints about the dog. The trial court dismissed the action against the government for failure to state a claim, concluding that sovereign and official immunity or, alternatively, the Responsible Dog Ownership Law (OCGA § 4–8–30), barred action against the government defendants. Husband appealed. The appeals court held the trial court did not err in dismissing the action against the county and its employees in their official capacities. The former version of OCGA § 4–8–30, effective at the time of the attack, provided immunity to local governments and their employees from liability for all injuries inflicted by dangerous or potentially dangerous dogs. The appeals court held that the trial court erred in dismissing the action against the employees in their individual capacities based on official immunity, however. By applying the former OCGA § 4–8–30 (2012) to dismiss the action against the employees in their individual capacities, the trial court implicitly rejected the husband’s constitutional challenge to the statute. Judgment was therefore affirmed in part and reversed in part, and remanded to the trial court to enter a ruling specifically and directly passing on the husband’s constitutional challenge. | Case |
| MA - Equine Activity Liability Statute - Chapter 128. Agriculture. | M.G.L.A. 128 § 2D | MA ST 128 § 2D | This Massachusetts law provides that an equine activity sponsor, an equine professional, or any other person shall not be liable for an injury to or the death of a participant resulting from the inherent risks of equine activities. The statute sets out several definitions related to equine activities, but specifically notes that the term "engage in an equine activity" shall not include being a spectator at an equine activity, except in cases where the spectator places himself in an unauthorized area or in immediate proximity to the equine activity. 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 willful or wanton disregard for the safety of the participant or intentionally injures the participant. | Statute |
| US - Horse - Wild Horses and Burros Act | 16 USC 1331 - 1340 | The Wild Horses and Burros Act approved December 15, 1971, provides for protection of wild, free-roaming horses and burros. It directs the Bureau of Land Management of the Department of the Interior and Forest Service of the Department of Agriculture to manage such animals on public lands under their jurisdiction. | Statute | |
| Ley Federal de Responsabilidad Ambiental | Ley Federal de Responsabilidad Ambiental | This law governs environmental responsibility arising from environmental harm and addresses the legal damages and consequences resulting from such harm. It recognizes damages caused to the environment regardless of the damages caused to the owner of the land and the natural resources. | Statute | |
| State v. Crosswhite | 273 Or. App. 605 (2015) | 2015 WL 5439355 (Or. Ct. App., 2015) | After being tipped off about a dog fight, authorities seized several dogs from a home. Defendant was charged with one count of second-degree animal abuse and four counts of second-degree animal neglect. After the presentation of the state's evidence in circuit court, defendant moved for a judgment of acquittal on all counts, arguing, as to second-degree animal neglect, that the state had failed to present sufficient evidence from which a jury could conclude that defendant had custody or control over the dogs. Circuit court denied the motion and defendant was convicted on all counts. Defendant appealed the denial of the motion, again arguing that the state failed to prove that he had “custody or control” over the dogs. The appeals court concluded that the plain text and context of ORS 167.325(1), together with the legislature's use of the same term in a similar statute, demonstrated that the legislature intended the term “control” to include someone who had the authority to guide or manage an animal or who directed or restrained the animal, regardless if the person owned the animal. Given the facts of the case, the court concluded that based on that evidence, a reasonable juror could find that defendant had control over the dogs, and the trial court had not erred in denying defendant’s motion for judgment of acquittal. | Case |
| ID - Dog - Consolidated Dog Laws | I.C. § 18-7039; § 25-2801 - 2812; § 36-1101 | I.C.A. § 18-7039; 25-2801 - 2812; I.C.A. § 36-1101 | These Idaho statutes comprise the state's dog laws. Among the provisions include licensing requirements, laws regarding dogs at large and vicious dogs, and immunity for acts done by law enforcement dogs. | Statute |
| Eastep v. Veterinary Medical Examining Bd. | 539 P.2d 1144 (Or.App. 1975) | 22 Or.App. 457 (1975) |
Petitioner-veterinarian sought judicial review of veterinary medical examining board's denial of his application for renewal of his license to practice, and the permanent revocation of his right to practice veterinary medicine in Oregon. The Court held that there was ample evidence ample evidence to support board's finding that petitioner was guilty of unprofessional conduct for misrepresentation to dog owner of surgical services allegedly rendered, whether the standard adopted be that of 'clear and convincing evidence,' as petitioner urges, or that of 'reliable, probative and substantial evidence' (ORS 183.480(7)(d)), as urged by respondent. |
Case |
| CA - Birds, killing - § 598. Birds in cemeteries; killing, trapping, destroying nests, etc. | West's Ann. Cal. Penal Code § 598 | CA PENAL § 598 | This statute makes it unlawful within any public cemetery or burying-ground to kill, wound, or trap any bird, or destroy any bird's nest other than swallows' nests, or remove any eggs or young birds from any nest. | Statute |
| Ecuador - Environmental - Decreto Ejecutivo 752 | Regulations to the Code of the Environment | Decreto 752 regulates the environment code. It comprises seven books that regulate each of the books in the Environmental Code regulating topics such as natural heritage, environmental quality, climate change, the coastal marine zone, environmental incentives, etc. These books contain chapters, sections, and provisions concerning wildlife, urban fauna, protected areas, production, and sustainable use, etc. This regulation establishes that all wildlife species are protected by the government, and gives special priority to native, endemic, threatened, and migratory species. It prohibits the commercial trade of wildlife from being used as pets without authorization; the commercial trade of native, endemic, threatened, and migratory wildlife species directly taken from their natural habitat; and other prohibitions that the environmental authority may establish. This executive decree also regulates the application of The Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES) in Chapter V, articles 106-121. | Statute |