Displaying 91 - 100 of 123
Titlesort descending Summary

In Waterford, Michigan, it is unlawful to acquire, possess or maintain any pit bull terrier, with exceptions made for dogs participating in dog shows and for dogs registered as of the date of adoption of this ordinance (1990). However, owners of such dogs must be over 18 years old and comply with all of the conditions, such as keeping the dog on a leash, using a muzzle, and keeping liability insurance.

MI - Wildlife Conservation - Chapter 324. Natural Resources and Environmental Protection Act. Article III. Natural Resources Ma

These sections define game animals and lay out the regulations for taking/hunting them. Moreover, the statute clarifies that the animals are property of the people of the state and are managed by the state for their benefit. This statute also contains the Scientific Fish and Wildlife Conservation Act passed in August of 2014. The Act allows the Legislature or bipartisan Natural Resources Commission to designate a wildlife species as game, but Natural Resources Commission orders must be consistent with its duty to use sound science. Section 324.40112 also sets out the state's hunter harassment provision.

MI - Wildlife Conservation - Chapter 324. Natural Resources and Environmental Protection Act

This Section describes the Department of Natural Resource's authority to co-operate with the federal government and to use hunters' license fees for wildlife restoration.

MI - Wildlife Conservation -Chapter 324. Natural Resources and Environmental Protection Act.

These sections describe the regulatory powers of the Department of Natural Resources in issuing conservation orders protecting fish, game, and birds.

MI - Wolves - Control of gray wolves, § 324.95151 to 324.95167 This chapter of Michigan laws deals with the removal, capture, or destruction of gray wolves. According to the laws, a landowner is able to use any means necessary to remove a gray wolf from its property, including lethal force, if the gray wolf is threatening the landowners livestock or dog(s). Once a landowner has removed, captured, or destroyed a gray wolf, the landowner must report it to a department official no later than 12 hours after the removal, capture, or destruction. According to Section 324.95167, the act is not operative until final appellate court issues a decision overruling the decision of The Humane Society of the United States v Dirk Kempthorne that allows removal of wolves from the federal ESA list, or the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service promulgates a final rule dated after March 12, 2007 that removes gray wolves located in this state from the list of endangered and threatened wildlife established under the federal endangered species act of 1973 and that final rule takes effect.
Michigan Compiled Laws 1838: Chapter 8: Section 22

The Michigan law concerning the treatment of animals from 1838. The law states the punishment for the crime, and factors for determining if the crime has occurred.

Michigan Compiled Laws 1929: Chapter 285: Section 1

Chapter 285, entitled "An act for the more effectual prevention of cruelty to animals," concerns Michigan's Law about the treatment of animals from 1929.  The act covers what qualifies as cruelty to animals and what is the punishment for crime of cruelty to animals.

Oestrike v. Neifert

In this case, defendant Neifert rented land to graze cattle.  Plaintiff owned billboards in the pasture that were often painted with lead-based paint.  Defendant's cattle ate the lead-contaminated paint left in the pails and the ground and subsequently died from poisoning.  The Court upheld the award of damages to defendant-Neifert on a negligence theory because plaintiffs should have reasonably known that the cattle would ingest the paint left in the pails and on the field. 

Overview of Michigan Great Ape Laws This is a short over view of Michigan Great Ape law.
People v Beam

Defendant argues on appeal that his conviction under MCL 750.49, which punishes the owner of a dog trained or used for fighting that causes the death of a person, must be reversed because the statute is unconstitutionally vague; specifically, that the terms "trained or used for fighting," "without provocation," and "owner" are vague.  The court disagreed and held that the statute is sufficiently clear and gives the defendant fair notice of the offense.