Results
| Title | Citation | Alternate Citation | Summary | Type |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| AU - Wildlife - National Parks and Wildlife Act 1974 (NSW) | National Parks and Wildlife Act 1974 | An Act to consolidate and amend the law relating to the establishment, preservation and management of national parks, historic sites and certain other areas and the protection of certain fauna, native plants and Aboriginal objects . | Statute | |
| WI - Breed - 95.13. Misrepresenting breed of domestic animal | W. S. A. 95.13 | WI ST 95.13 | Under this Wisconsin statute, no person may sell any domestic animal or represent that such domestic animal is a pure bred animal, if the animal is not registered or entitled to be registered, in any pure breed registry for that breed. | Statute |
| KS - Hesston - Breed - 2-125 PROHIBITION ON OWNERSHIP, KEEPING, OF CERTAIN DOG BREEDS. | HESSTON, KS., CITY CODE § 2-125, 2-126 (2007) |
In Hesston, Kansas, it is unlawful to keep, harbor, own, or possess a Staffordshire bull terrier, an American pit bull terrier, or a Rottweiler. Dogs that were registered with the city on the date of publication of this ordinance may be kept within the city limits subject to certain requirements, such as using a leash and muzzle outside, confining the dog in certain ways, posting “Beware of Dog” signs, maintaining liability insurance of $50,000, and taking identification photographs. A violation may result in a fine of up to $1,000 and/or imprisonment up to 30 days.
|
Local Ordinance | |
| UK - Farming - UK General Welfare of Farmed Animals Regs. 2000 | Statutory Instrument 2000 No. 1870 |
For historical purposes only. Law has been repealed and/or replaced. The UK's general animal welfare legislation affecting any animal (including fish, reptiles or amphibians) bred or kept for the production of food, wool, skin or fur or for other farming purposes. |
Statute | |
| Brandon v. Village of Maywood | 157 F. Supp.2d 917 (N.D. Ill. 2001) |
Plaintiffs brought § 1983 action against village and police officers after botched drug bust in which bystander and dog were wounded. The court held that the police officers were entitled to qualified immunity in shooting of dog and the village did not have policies on police conduct that warranted liability. However, issues of fact precluded summary judgment on false imprisonment claim based on officers' assertion of immunity.
|
Case | |
| VA - Exotic - Article 14. Dangerous Captive Animal Exhibits | VA Code Ann. § 3.2-6594 - 6596 | VA ST § 3.2-6594 | This section of Virginia laws, enacted in 2021, makes it unlawful for any keeper to provide or offer to provide to any member of the public, for free or for a cost, direct contact with a dangerous captive animal. A “dangerous captive animal” means any bear, cougar, jaguar, leopard, lion, nonhuman primate, or tiger, or any hybrid of any such animal. “Dangerous captive animal” does not include a clouded leopard. Violation incurs a Class 3 misdemeanor and is subject to a fine of not more than $500. | Statute |
| Liddle v. Clark | 107 N.E.3d 478 (Ind. Ct. App.), transfer denied, 113 N.E.3d 627 (Ind. 2018) | In November of 2005 DNR issued an emergency rule that authorized park managers to permit individuals to trap racoons during Indiana’s official trapping season which it reissued on an annual basis from 2007 to 2013. Harry Bloom, a security officer at Versailles State Park (VSP) began installing his own lethal traps with the authorization from the park’s manager. The park manager did not keep track of where the traps were placed nor did Bloom post any signs to warn people of the traps due to fear of theft. As a result, Melodie Liddle’s dog, Copper, died in a concealed animal trap in the park. Liddle filed suit against several state officials and asked the court to declare the state-issued emergency rules governing trapping in state parks invalid. The trial court awarded damages to Liddle for the loss of her dog. Liddle appealed the trial court’s ruling on summary judgment limiting the calculation of damages and denying her request for declaratory judgment. On appeal, Liddle claimed that the trial court erred in ruling in favor of DNR for declaratory judgment on the emergency trapping rules and in excluding sentimental value from Liddle’s calculation of damages. The Court concluded that Liddle’s claim for declaratory relief was moot because the 2012 and 2013 versions of the emergency rule were expired and no longer in effect. The Court also concluded that recovery of a pet is limited to fair market-value since animals are considered personal property under Indiana law. The Court ultimately affirmed the trial court’s ruling. | Case | |
| Lockett v. Hill |
Defendant's pit bulls killed plaintiff's cat while she watched. This is an appellate brief about non-economic damages. |
Pleading | ||
| UT - Ecoterrorism - § 76-6-110. Offenses committed against animal enterprises--Definitions--Enhanced penalties | U.C.A. 1953 § 76-3-203.16 (Formerly cited as UT ST § 76-6-110) | UT ST § 76-3-203.16 | This section comprises Utah's animal enterprise interference law. A person who commits any criminal offense with the intent to halt, impede, obstruct, or interfere with the lawful operation of an animal enterprise or to damage, take, or cause the loss of any property owned by, used by, or in the possession of a lawful animal enterprise, is subject to an enhanced penalty. These penalties enhancements raise the level of the crime one degree (e.g., a class C misdemeanor becomes a class B misdemeanor and a class A misdemeanor becomes a third degree felony). | Statute |
| Cetacean Cmty. v. President of the United States | 249 F. Supp. 2d 1206 (D.C. Hawaii, 2003) | Plaintiff, a community of whales, dolphins, and porpoises, sued Defendants, the President of the United States and the United States Secretary of Defense, alleging violations of the (NEPA), the (APA), the (ESA), and the (MMPA). The Plaintffs were concerned with the United States Navy's development and use of a low frequency active sonar (LFAS) system. The community alleged a failure to comply with statutory requirements with respect to LFAS use during threat and warfare conditions. | Case |