Results
| Title | Citation | Alternate Citation | Summary | Type |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Newton County Wildlife Ass'n v. U.S. Forest Service | 113 F.3d 110 (8th Cir. 1997) | 44 ERC 201728, Envtl. L. Rep. 20, 020 | Newton County Wildlife Association sued the United States Forest Service seeking judicial review of four timber sales in the Ozark National Forest. The Wildlife Association filed sequential motions to preliminarily enjoin the sales as violative of the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act (WSRA) and the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA). The district court1 separately denied each motion, and the Wildlife Association separately appealed those orders. The Court held that because the Forest Service may limit WSRA plans to lands lying within designated river segments, failure to timely prepare the Plans cannot be a basis for enjoining timber sales on lands lying outside any designated area. With respect to the MBTA, the Court held that "it would stretch this 1918 statute far beyond the bounds of reason to construe it as an absolute criminal prohibition on conduct, such as timber harvesting, that indirectly results in the death of migratory birds." Therefore, the Court affirmed the district court's denial of injunctive relief. | Case |
| VT - Domestic Violence - § 1103. Requests for relief. | 15 V.S.A. § 1103 | VT ST T. 15 § 1103 | Any family or household member may seek relief from abuse by another family or household member on behalf of him- or herself or his or her children by filing a complaint under this chapter. Included among the relief that the court can grant is an order concerning the possession, care, and control of any animal owned, possessed, leased, kept, or held as a pet by either party or a minor child residing in the household in section (c)(2)(G). | Statute |
| TN - Nashville - Title 8 - ANIMALS | Title 8 - ANIMALS |
These are the animal ordinances for the Metro Government of Nashville and Davidson County, Tennessee. These laws include dog laws (including vicious dogs), wildlife and animal control regulations. |
Local Ordinance | |
| Koivisto v. Davis | 745 N.W.2d 824 (Mich.App., 2008) | 2008 WL 81559 (Mich.App.), 277 Mich.App. 492 (2008) |
Defendants, the Macaks, owned two dogs being boarded at Chieftan Kennels. Plaintiff was outside on her deck when the dogs entered her property and attacked her cats, one of which died later from its injuries. The plaintiff rushed to defend the cats and suffered multiple bites from the dogs. The trial court held that the plaintiff had “provoked” the dogs. The Court of Appeals reversed. “The dogs were already provoked and, in fact, were in a state of attack, for whatever reason when plaintiff responded to their behaviors while on her own property.” |
Case |
| TX - Ordinances - § 1.08. Preemption | V. T. C. A., Penal Code § 1.08 | TX PENAL § 1.08 | This law provides for preemption of state criminal laws over the laws enacted by governmental subdivisions or agencies. | Statute |
| Ivey v. Hamlin (Unpublished) | 2002 WL 1254444 (Tenn.Ct.App.)(Not reproted in S.W.3rd) |
This is an action for damages for the deliberate killing of a dog by a Deputy Sheriff that was alleging terrorizing the neighborhood. In finding for defendant-officer, the court noted that the consensus among the courts is that a vicious dog is a public nuisance and that governments and their agents have broad power to protect the public from these animals. The court thus found the officer acted reasonably under the circumstances and had a qualified immunity defense. |
Case | |
| People v. Jornov | 65 A.D.3d 363, 881 N.Y.S.2d 776 (N.Y.A.D. 4 Dept.,2009) | 2009 WL 1887134 (N.Y.A.D. 4 Dept.), 2009 N.Y. Slip Op. 05430 |
This New York case stems from an attack on Philip Mueller and his dog by Defendant-Appellant Jornov's "two pit bull-terrier mixed breed dogs.” During proceedings in City Court, the court determined that defendant's dogs were dangerous dogs and directed that they be euthanized. The Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Fourth Department, affirmed the finding that the dogs were dangerous under Agriculture and Markets Law § 121 and Agriculture and Markets Law § 350[5] because there was clear and convincing evidence that the dogs attacked a companion animal and behaved in a manner that a reasonable person would believe posed a serious and imminent threat of serious physical injury or death. However, under the amended version of the statute, a judge or justice may not automatically direct humane euthanasia or permanent confinement of a dangerous dog where none of the aggravating circumstances are present. |
Case |
| IL - Education - Act 112. Dissection Alternatives Act | 105 ILCS 112/1 - 112/99 | IL ST CH 105 § 112/1 - 112/99 | This comprises Illinois' Dissection Alternatives Act. The act requires the State Board of Education to make guidelines that give notice to parents and students on which courses ordinarily involve dissection of animals and whether or not alternative projects for learning are available. A school may excuse a student enrolled in a course in which students are ordinarily expected to perform, participate in, or observe dissection who objects for any reason to performing, participating in, or observing that dissection and instead allow the student to complete an alternative project. The act defines "student" as those pupils at a public or private elementary or secondary school in Illinois. No student is to be penalized or discriminated against for refusing to perform, participate in, or observe dissection. | Statute |
| Staff is conducting a procedure on a night monkey placed on a dirty table | Slideshow Images | |||
| WA - Beavers - 77.32.585. Release of wild beavers | West's RCWA 77.32.585 | WA ST 77.32.585 | This Washington law states that the department shall permit the release of wild beavers on public and private lands with agreement from the property owner under specified conditions. | Statute |