Results

Displaying 81 - 90 of 6638
Title Citation Alternate Citation Agency Citation Summary Type
CA - Initiatives - Proposition 12 (2018) Proposition 12 (2018) Proposition 12 establishes new minimum space requirements for certain farmed animals, including veal calves, pregnant pigs, and egg-laying hens. It also requires that egg-laying hens be raised in a cage-free environment after December 31, 2021. The measure follows the passage of Proposition 2 in 2008, which banned the sale of products from animals raised in violation of the minimum animal welfare requirements. Statute
VA - Dangerous - § 3.2-6540. Control of dangerous or vicious dogs; penalties Va. Code Ann. § 3.2-6540 - 6543.1 VA ST § 3.2-6540 - 6543.1 These Virginia statutes comprise the state's dangerous dog laws, which were updated in 2021. Any law-enforcement officer or animal control officer who (i) has reason to believe that an animal is a dangerous dog and (ii) is located in the jurisdiction where the animal resides or in the jurisdiction where the act was committed may apply to a magistrate for the issuance of a summons requiring the owner, if known, to appear before a general district court at a specified time. The summons shall advise the owner of the nature of the proceeding and the matters at issue. Section 3.2-6540.1 also defines a vicious dog as "a canine or canine crossbreed that has (i) killed a person, (ii) inflicted serious injury to a person, or (iii) continued to exhibit the behavior that resulted in a previous finding by a court or, on or before July 1, 2006, by an animal control officer as authorized by ordinance that it is a dangerous dog, provided that its owner has been given notice of that finding." Statute
US - Wolf - Final Rule To Identify the Northern Rocky Mountain Population of Gray Wolf as a Distinct Population Segment and To R FWS–R6–ES–2008–0008; 92220–1113– 0000; ABC Code: C6

The FWS identifies the gray wolf in the Northern Rocky Mountains as a Distinct Population Segment (DPS) and removes this DPS from the List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife, except in Wyoming.   The wolf population in this area is about 5 times higher than the minimum population recovery goal and 3 times higher than the minimum breeding pair recovery goal.  The gray wolf is not removed from the list in Wyoming because of inadequate regulatory mechanisms

Administrative
OH - Impound - Impounding Animals R.C. § 715.23 OH ST § 715.23 This Ohio statute empowers municipal corporations to regulate, restrain, or prohibit the running at large of cattle, horses, swine, sheep, goats, geese, chickens, or other fowl or animals (except as otherwise provided for dogs), impound and hold these animals, and authorize the sale of the animals for the penalty imposed. Statute
MO - Florissant - Breed - SECTION 205.395: REGULATION OF PIT BULL DOGS FLORISSANT, MO. MUNICIPAL CODE § 205.395 (2010) In Florissant, Missouri, it is unlawful to keep, harbor, own, or possess any pit bull, except pit bulls licensed on the effective date are allowed. Such dogs are subject to certain requirements, such as owners taking identifying photographs, keeping the dog properly confined and/or secured, posting a "Beware of Dog--Pit Bull" sign, keeping $100,000 liability insurance, and sterilizing the dog. A violation may result in seizure and impoundment of the dog. Local Ordinance
Horton v. State Horton v. State, 27 So. 468 (Ala. 1900).

The defendant was charged under the Alabama cruelty to animal statute killing a dog.  The trial court found the defendant guilty of cruelly killing the dog.  The defendant appealed the descision to the Supreme Court for the determination if the killing of the dog with a rifle was cruel.  The Supreme Court found that the killing of a dog without the showing of cruelty to the animal was not a punishable offence under the cruelty to animal statute.  The Supreme Court reversed the lower court's descision and remanded it.

Case
Poarch Creek Band of Indians of Alabama. 8-6-31-Cruelty to Animals Chapter VI, Title 8, Section 8-6-31 Under Sec. 8-6-31, cruelty to animals is a Class A Misdemeanor. A person who, without justification, knowingly or negligently subjects an animal to mistreatment by actions defined in the statute commit the crime of cruelty to animals. Statute
SD - Bite - Chapter 40-34. Dog Licenses and Regulation (Vicious Dog Provisions) S D C L § 40-34-13 to 16 SD ST § 40-34-13 to 16 This South Dakota statute provides that a vicious dog, defined as any dog which, when unprovoked, in a vicious manner approaches in apparent attitude of attack, or bites, or otherwise attacks a human being including a mailman, meter reader, serviceman, etc. who is on private property by reason of permission of the owner, is a public nuisance. However, no dog may be declared vicious if an injury or damage is sustained to any person who was committing a willful trespass or other tort upon premises occupied by the owner or keeper of the dog, or who was teasing, tormenting, abusing or assaulting the dog or was committing or attempting to commit a crime. Statute
NH - Assistance Animals - Assistance Animal/Guide Dog Laws N.H. Rev. Stat. § 5:15-b; § 21-P:37-a; 167-D:1 - 10; 265:41-a; § 376-A:15 NH ST § 5:15-b; § 21-P:37-a; 167-D:1 - 10; 265:41-a; § 376-A:15 The following statutes comprise the state's relevant assistance animal and guide dog laws. Statute
Lessman v. Rhodes 721 N.E.2d 178(1999)

Plaintiff, a participant in a horse show, was injured when a stallion bucked and kicked him; he sued the show’s sponsor, and the stallion’s rider and owner alleging negligent and willful and wanton misconduct, by failing to conduct background checks into the horses and by failing to separate the stallions participating in the show, inter alia .   The Equine Activity Liability Act, which was established to shield those persons who participate in equine activities from liability, provides an exception to the general rule by permitting liability for equine activity sponsors that commit “an act or omission that constitutes willful or wanton disregard for the safety of the participant, and that act or omission caused the injury.”   In this case, the plaintiff failed to provide evidence that showed that the defendants behaved in a reckless or intentional manner, therefore the summary judgment in favor of the defendant entered by the trial court was founded to be proper.

Case

Pages