Results
| Title | Citation | Alternate Citation | Summary | Type |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| SC - Fur - Article 12. Trapping Furbearing Animals, Regulation of Dealers, Buyers, Processors, | Code 1976 § 50-11-2400 - 2575 | SD ST § 50-11-2400 - 2575 | In South Carolina, a state hunting license and a commercial fur license are required to sell or take furbearing animals for commercial purposes. Trappers may only set traps during trapping season, must show proof of ownership of property or permission to use property where traps are set, must visit his traps daily, and remove any animals caught in the trap. A violation of these statutes is a misdemeanor, which may result in a fine, imprisonment, and/or revocation of a license. | Statute |
| Altman v. City of High Point | 330 F.3d 194 C.A.4 (N.C. 2003) |
This case arises out of several shooting incidents in the City of High Point, North Carolina. In each incident, a High Point animal control officer shot and killed one or more dogs that were running at large in the city. Plaintiffs, the owners of the animals, brought suit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging that the officers' actions violated their Fourth Amendment rights. The Court of Appeals concluded that the dogs at issue in this case do qualify as property protected by the Fourth Amendment and that the officers seized that property. However, because in each instance the seizure involved was reasonable, it concluded that the officers did not violate the plaintiffs' Fourth Amendment rights. |
Case | |
| Pray v. Whiteskunk | 801 N.W.2d 451 (S.D., 2011) | 2011 S.D. 43; 2011 WL 3207821 (S.D.) |
In this South Dakota case, the plaintiff suffered a broken knee after Defendant's Rottweiler brook loose from its owner and ran toward the street, causing plaintiff to fall. Plaintiff brought an action for damages against both the dog owner and the city, specifically alleging the the city knew the dog was dangerous and failed to enforce its vicious animal ordinance. On appeal of the granting of summary judgment for the city, this court found that plaintiff failed to establish that the action taken by the city caused the harm to Pray or exposed her to greater risks, thereby leaving her in a worse position than she was in before the city took action. While this Court found that the city had actual knowledge of the dog's dangerousness, this alone is insufficient. |
Case |
| LA - Feral pigs - § 102.28. Transporting live feral swine prohibited; penalties | LSA-R.S. 14:102.28 | LA R.S. 14:102.28 | This 2018 Louisiana law makes it unlawful to transport live feral swine by any person not in possession of proof of registration as a feral swine authorized transporter with the Louisiana Board of Animal Health within the Department of Agriculture and Forestry. Whoever violates the provisions of this Section shall be fined not more than nine hundred dollars, or imprisoned for not more than six months, or both. Note that a subsection states, "[t]he provisions of this Section shall not apply to “Uncle Earl's Hog Dog Trials”' | Statute |
| White v. Vermont Mutual Insurance Company | 106 A.3d 1159 (N.H., 2014) | 167 N.H. 153 (2014) | This is an appeal brought by Susan and Peter White to a declaratory judgment that her son, Charles Matthews, was not covered under Susan's homeowner's insurance policy with the respondent.The incident that led to this case involved Matthews' dog causing injury to Susan while at the home covered by the policy. The policy covered the insurer and residents of their home who are relatives, so Susan attempted to collect from Vermont Mutual for the damage done by the dog. However, her claim was denied because Matthews was deemed to not be a resident of the home. This court affirms. | Case |
| VA - Cemeteries, Pet - Article 8. Pet Cemeteries | VA Code Ann. §§ 57-39.20 - 57-39.25 | VA ST §§ 57-39.20 - 57-39.25 | This Virginia chapter concerns pet cemeteries. Pet cemetery means land, together with any structures, facilities, or buildings appurtenant thereto provided to members of the public for use or reservation for use for the individual interment, above or below ground, of pet remains. The owner of land used for a pet cemetery must file a declaration in the office of the clerk restricting the land use. Each pet cemetery operation must establish a "perpetual care fund" of at least $12,000 before the first plot is sold in the pet cemetery. Violation of § 57-39.22 relating to the perpetual care fund is a Class 3 misdemeanor. | Statute |
| OK - Impound - § 394. Delivery of animals on demand--Municipal ordinances relating to impoundment and scientific research | 4 Okl. St. Ann. § 394 | OK ST T. 4 § 394 | This Oklahoma statute provides that, except as otherwise provided by municipal ordinance, it shall be the duty of the pound supervisor to deliver available impounded animals to licensed research facilities unless excepted by statute. Only dogs that have been impounded for a minimum of 15 days for a unlicensed dogs and 30 days days for licensed dogs and those dogs that were not voluntarily impounded by their owners on condition that they not be used for scientific research may be given to institutions. | Statute |
| Stephens v. State | Stephans v. State, 3 So. 458 (Miss. 1887) (Arnold J. plurality). |
The Mississippi Cruelty to Animal statute was applied to the Defendant who killed several hogs that were eating his crops. The lower court refused to instruct the Jury that they should find him not guilty, if they believed that he killed the hogs while depredating on his crop and to protect it, and not out of a spirit of cruelty to the animals. The Supreme Court of Mississippi found it to be an error by the court to refuse to give such instructions because if the defendant was not actuated by a spirit of cruelty, or a disposition to inflict unnecessary pain and suffering, he was not guilty under the statute. |
Case | |
| Frank v. Animal Haven, Inc. | 107 A.D.3d 574 (N.Y.A.D. 1 Dept.,2013.) | 967 N.Y.S.2d 370, 2013 N.Y. Slip Op. 04711 |
Plaintiff was bitten by the dog that she adopted from Animal Haven, Inc. and sued that entity for personal injuries stemming from the bite. In affirming the decision to dismiss the complaint, this court noted that the adopting parties signed a contract a the time of adoption where they undertook a "lifetime commitment" for the responsible care of the dog. While the contract stipulated that Animal Haven had the right to have the dog returned if the plaintiff breached the contract, this did not reserve a right of ownership of the dog. Further, the contract also explicitly relieved Animal Haven of liability once the dog was in the possession of the adoptive parties. |
Case |
| Argentina - Farm animals - Decreto 206, 2001 | Decreto 206/2001 | Decreto 206/2001 created the The National Program of Organic Production (PRONAO), which is under the jurisdiction of the Secretariat of Agriculture, Livestock, Fishing and Food of the Ministry of Economy. The purpose of this program is to promote the production and trade of organic production in Argentina. Specifically, Chapter VII of this decreto regulates animal production. Article 13. Reads: “Organic livestock should develop a harmonious relationship between land, plants and livestock, and respect the physiological and behavioral needs of animals." Animals produced under these organic standards must meet animal welfare guidelines. This program advises to use alternative practices to mutilations such as tail-docking, debeaking, tooth and wing trimming. It specifically states that this practices are not recommended as a concurrent practice. | Statute |