North Carolina

Displaying 41 - 50 of 57
Titlesort ascending Summary
NC - Commerce - Chapter 113. Conservation and Development.


North Carolina law makes it a Class 2 misdemeanor to sell, possess for sale, or buy any wildlife. Further, the law specifically makes it a greater transgression (a Class 1 misdemeanor) to unlawfully take, possess, transport, sell, or buy any dead or alive bald or golden eagle, nest or egg.  The taking of other animals listed like bears and cougars also incurs greater penalty.

NC - Assistance Animals - Assistance Animal/Guide Dog Laws

The following statutes comprise the state's relevant assistance animal and guide dog laws.

NC - Animal Shelters - § 153A-442. Animal shelters

This North Carolina statute authorizes counties within the state to establish, maintain, and appropriate available funding for animal shelters. The statute also describes the standards that animal shelters in the county should meet.

Malloy v. Cooper


Plaintiff owned a Gun Club and sponsored a pigeon shoot.

 

He challenged the constitutionality of a statute prohibiting the intentional wounding or killing of animals.  Held:  unconstitutionally vague.

Kitchin ex rel. Kitchin v. Halifax County


In this North Carolina case, defendant dog owners appealed from a decision of the County Board of Health that ruled their dog could not be returned home because of the dog's potential exposure to rabies as result of attacking a raccoon (the dog was scheduled for euthanization). After the Board denied the owners' appeal, they filed a complaint against county which contained motions for preliminary and permanent injunctions to prevent dog's quarantine and for class certification. The Court of Appeals held that the owners' appeal of Board's decision to quarantine dog was moot because dog had already been returned home. The action against the animal control officers was dismissed because the officers were shielded by governmental immunity.

Justice for Animals, Inc. v. Robeson County


Non-profit and advocate challenged the improper treatment/euthanasia of animals and complaint was dismissed.  On appeal, the Court of Appeals held that the plaintiff's qualified as "aggrieved persons" within the statute, but that all administrative remedies were not sought.  Affirmed.

Justice for Animals, Inc. v. Lenoir County SPCA, Inc.


An animal control facility's practice of euthanizing feral cats without holding them for 72 hours was challenged by a non-profit organization.  The animal control facility's method for determining if a cat is feral consisted only of poking the animal and gaging its reaction.  The trial court dismissed the claim, but the Court of Appeals reversed the decision.

Jones v. Craddock


The plaintiff in

Jones v. Craddock

, 210 N.C. 429 (N.C. 1936), brought a cause of action for negligent injury to her dog. In this case of first impression, the court embraced, “. . . the modern view that ordinarily dogs constitute a species of property, subject to all the incidents of chattel and valuable domestic animals.” The court determined that plaintiff was entitled to a cause of action for negligence since defendant could have avoided running over plaintiff’s companion animal with a slight turn.

Holcomb v. Colonial Associates, L.L.C.


This North Carolina case involves the issue of whether a landlord can be held liable for negligence when his tenant's dogs injure a third party where a landlord has agreed by contract to remove "undesirable" dogs.  Under the terms of the lease, the tenant, Olson, could keep one Rottweiler dog on the property.  It was also stipulated that the landlord could require removal of any "undesirable" pets with 48-hour's notice.  The dogs in the instant action attacked a contractor who was making an estimate on some of the rental homes, and, according to testimony, had committed two prior attacks.  The court concluded that the Court of Appeals erred, in that the plaintiff was not required to show Colonial was an owner or keeper of the dogs in order to show Colonial was negligent; that requirement is limited only to strict liability actions.  As a result, the court found Colonial failed to use ordinary care by failing to require the defendant Olson to restrain his Rottweiler dogs, or remove them from the premises when the defendant knew, or in the exercise of reasonable care, should have known, from the dogs' past conduct, that they were likely, if not restrained, to do an act from which a reasonable person could foresee.  Of particular importance to the court, was the lease provision, which the court felt contractually obligated the landlord to retain control over defendant's dogs. 

Harris v. Barefoot


A mail carrier was attacked by two dogs, and sued the dogs’ owners for negligence. The Court of Appeals affirmed summary judgment for the defendants, holding that a dog owner is not liable unless there is evidence that the dog had a vicious propensity and that the owner knew or should have known that the dog was dangerous.

Pages