Results
| Title | Citation | Alternate Citation | Agency Citation | Summary | Type |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mercado v. Ovalle | 973 N.Y.S.2d 171 (N.Y.A.D. 1 Dept., 2013) | 2013 N.Y. Slip Op. 06810, 2013 WL 5712557, 110 A.D.3d 539 |
In this New York case, plaintiff appealed the lower court's order granting defendants' motion for summary judgment in a dog bite case. Defendants, a grocery store and its owner, asserted that they did not own the two pit bulls that attacked plaintiff. The only evidence plaintiff presented showing defendants' ownership and control over the dogs were hearsay statements from the mechanic who operated the lot that the dogs guarded. The court found this evidence that defendants occasionally walked and fed the dogs insufficient to show that they "harbored" the dogs. Affirmed. |
Case | |
| England and Wales - Dogs - The Dangerous Dogs Exemption Schemes (England and Wales) Order 2015 | 2015 No. 138 | An order providing exemptions from the immediate destruction of a dangerous dog, by way of a Contingent Destruction Order. Following a conviction under the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991, the Court must either order the immediate destruction of the dog, or the contingent destruction of a dog if satisfied that the dog is not a danger to public safety. Contains conditions that must be met in relation to the dog, and requirements that the person in charge of the dog must comply with. | Statute | ||
| CA - Elephant Training - § 2128. Elephants; prohibited practices; penalties | West's Ann. Cal. Fish & G. Code § 2128 | CA FISH & G § 2128 | This statute (operative on January 1, 2018) prohibits a person who houses, possesses, manages, or is in direct contact with an elephant from using a billhook, ankus, baseball bat, axe handle, pitchfork, and other devices that inflict pain for the purpose of training or controlling the elephant. Any person caught in violation of this statute will be subject to civil penalty and a suspension or revocation of his or her license to lawfully possess the animal. | Statute | |
| NC - Dangerous Dog - Chapter 67. Dogs. Article 1A. Dangerous Dogs. | N.C.G.S.A. § 67-1 to 18; N.C.G.S.A. § 130A-196, 130A-200 | NC ST § 67-1 to 18; NC ST § 130A-196, 130A-200 | These North Carolina statutes comprise the state's dangerous dog and dog bite laws. Among the provisions include misdemeanor penalties for an owner if a dangerous dog attacks a person and causes physical injuries requiring medical treatment in excess of one hundred dollars ($100.00) and strict liability in civil damages for any injuries or property damage the dog inflicts upon a person, his property, or another animal. Another statute provides that any person brought to receive medical treatment for a dog bite must report it to the local health director and the animal must be confined for a ten day observation period. | Statute | |
| Reichley v. Pennsylvania Dept. of Agriculture | 427 F.3d 236 (Pa. 2005) |
Poultry Producers brought claims against the Pennsylvania Department of Agriculture for deprivation of their property without adequate due process in response to an outbreak of avian influenza. The United States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania, granted defendants' motion for summary judgment and the Court of Appeals affirmed, reasoning there was no due process deprivation by failing to issue notice and an opportunity for a hearing before the quarantine and depopulation of the producers' flocks. |
Case | ||
| State ex rel. Missouri Dept. of Conservation v. Judges of Circuit Court of Reynolds County | 91 S.W.3d 602 (Mo. 2002) |
Sixteen residents who violated portions of the wildlife code challenged the hearings that they received before a panel from the Department of Conservation, which were not conducted in an evidentiary fashion or recorded. The Court found that, pursuant to the rulemaking authority granted under the State constitution to the Department of Conservation, the regulations provide for noncontested hearings unless the permitee is entitled by law to a contested hearing (a "contested case" is a proceeding before an agency in which legal rights, duties or privileges of specific parties are required by law to be determined after hearing). The Court found that no such law applies to this case, citing a case that determined hunting is not a fundamental right. |
Case | ||
| US - Endangered Species - Part 402 - Interagency Cooperation | 69 FR 4557 | 50 C.F.R. § 402.01 to .34 | These ESA (Endangered Species Act) regulations outline the rules for joint or interagency actions under the Act. Specifically, the regulations state that each federal agency shall confer with the Service (USFWS) on any action which is likely to jeopardize the continued existence of any proposed species or result in the destruction or adverse modification of proposed critical habitat; confer on the coordination of biological assessments and consultations; and confer regarding Fire Plan Project rules, among other things. | Administrative | |
| NV - Lien - 108.540. Lien upon animals; priority; demand for payment; foreclosure; penalty for taking or driving away animal | N.R.S. 108.540 | Any person furnishing feed, pasture or otherwise boarding any animal(s), at the request or with the consent of the owner, has a lien upon the animal(s), and may retain possession thereof until the sum due for the feed, pasture or board has been paid. Before foreclosing the lien by sale, the person furnishing the feed, pasture or board shall mail a registered or certified letter to the owner of the animal(s), at the owner's last known address, demanding payment. Any person who takes and drives away any such animal(s), while in the possession of the person feeding, pasturing or boarding them, without the consent of that person, and without first having paid all reasonable charges due thereon, is guilty of a misdemeanor. | Statute | ||
| PA - Disaster - State Emergency Managment Plan | Emergency Support Function #11 - Agriculture and Natural Resources Annex (2019) | The Pennsylvania Emergency Management Agency (PEMA) is the agency in charge of emergency response in the state. The issue of animals in disaster are dealt with in Emergency Support Function #11 - Agriculture and Natural Resources Annex (2021). | Administrative | ||
| MI - Dogs - Consolidated Dog Laws | M.C.L. 287.261 - 395; 317.63; 324.73101 - 73110; 324.42101 - 42106 | MI ST 287.261 - 395; 317.63; 324.73101 - 73110; 324.42101 - 42106 | The regulation of dogs and cats in Michigan implicates three major issues: licensing and registration of dogs; the regulation of animal control facilities and pet shops; and the ever-present concern of dog bites. The primary statutory vehicle that regulates the licensing requirements for dogs is the The Dog Law of 1919. Under the dog law, it is unlawful for any person to own a dog six months or older unless the dog is licensed. MCL Sec. 287.262. It is also unlawful for a person to own a dog six months or older that does not wear a collar and tag at all times, except when engaged in hunting activities accompanied by his or her owner. MCL Sec. 287.262. A female dog that is in heat may not go beyond her owner's premises unless properly held on a leash under this section. | Statute |