Nuisance

Displaying 1 - 10 of 34
Titlesort ascending Summary
WY - Ordinances - § 11-31-301. Public nuisance; notice; penalties; rules and regulations; This Wyoming statute provides that a board of county commissioners may declare the running at large of any specified animals in unincorporated areas within the county limits a public nuisance. Dogs or other animals, whose ownership cannot be determined, may be destroyed. A dog injuring or killing livestock may be killed by the owner of the livestock or his agent or any peace officer. However, any dog attacking any person in a vicious manner may be impounded by the county sheriff or animal control officer and held in quarantine for at least fifteen (15) days and not more than twenty (20) days after the attack to determine whether the dog has any disease which may be communicated to humans. A board of county commissioners may enact regulations relative to dogs running at large, vicious dogs, dogs running wild game or livestock or acts by other animals which shall carry out the purposes of this section. The county may also establish a county license fee and an animal control program/facility.
Wildlife Services
WI - Wildlife - Subchapter XII. Wildlife Damage Under these Wisconsin statutes, wild animals that are causing damage or a nuisance may be removed. These statutes also establish a wildlife damage abatement program and venison processing and donation program. Wildlife control measures in urban communities and management of double-crested cormorants are also provided.
Wallen v. City of Mobile Wallen appeals her convictions for six counts of violating Mobile, Alabama's public nuisance ordinances. The nuisance convictions stem from an anonymous complaint about multiple barking dogs at Wallen's property. After receiving the tip in March of 2016, an animal control officer drove to the residence, parked across the street, and, as he sat in his car, heard dogs bark continuously for approximately ten minutes. That same day, a local realtor went to house that was for sale behind Wallen's property and heard an "overwhelming" noise of dogs barking continuously for 30-45 minutes. For almost a year, officers received complaints about noise coming from Wallen's house. In May of 2017, Wallen entered a plea of not guilty for multiple charges of violating the public nuisance ordinance in Mobile Circuit Court. She also filed a motion to dismiss, arguing that the Mobile City Code was unconstitutionally vague. Her motion was later denied, and a jury trial was held where Wallen was found guilty of six counts of violating Mobile's public-nuisance ordinance. On appeal, Wallen first argues that the public nuisance ordinance is unconstitutionally overbroad because it regulates without reference to time, place, and manner. However, the court found that Wallen did not establish how the overbreadth doctrine applied to her case and how the ordinance was unconstitutional. As to her next vagueness challenge, Wallen contended that the ordinance had no objective standards to determine whether a dog's barking is disturbing or unreasonable. This court disagreed, finding the statute defines what are "disturbing noises" (which specifically states barking), and other courts previously established that the term "habit" in a dog-barking statute is not vague. Finally, the found that Wallen's last general argument, that the code is unconstitutional as applied to her, did not satisfy court rules with respect to issues presented and support with authority on appeal. The judgment of the lower court was affirmed.
VT - Ordinances - § 2291. Enumeration of powers (dog ordinances) This Vermont statute provides that, for the purpose of promoting the public health, safety, welfare and convenience, a town, city or incorporated village shall have the power to regulate the keeping of dogs, and to provide for their leashing, muzzling or restraint.
VA - Nuisance animals - § 29.1-517. Trapping and shooting of fur-bearing animals during closed season This Virginia law states that a landowner may shoot fur-bearing animals upon his own land during closed season when these animals are causing damage to crops or property, or are posing a threat to human health or safety, or are otherwise causing a nuisance.
UT - Nuisance Animals - Chapter 18. Furbearers. These Utah statutes require a furbearer license to take furbearers, except for red fox, striped skunk, or beavers that are doing damage to private property (with authorization). Fur dealers must have a fur dealer certificate of registration from the Division of Wildlife Resources.
Spencer Creek Pollution Control Ass'n v. Organic Fertilizer Co.


This is a nuisance case involving the operation of a cattle feed lot.  Plaintiff sued to enjoin feed lot operators from interfering with use and enjoyment of plaintiffs' property asked for damages. The circuit court rendered judgment and defendant appealed. The Supreme Court held that decree limiting defendants to having no more than 600 head of cattle on its feed lot at one time was reasonable.
Robert Zauper, Plaintiff v. Michael Lababit and Jane Doe Lababit, and the marital community comprised thereof; and Does 1-10, De


This Kitsap County, Washington judgment summary, findings of fact, and conclusions of law found defendants liable for five claims including simple negligence, strict liability, private nuisance, public nuisance, and gross negligence. In the award of damages, plaintiff received a total judgment in the amount of $75,501.09, which included $50,000 for intrinsic value and $25,000 for emotional distress.
RI - Cats - Chapter 22. Cat Identification Program and Chapter 24. Permit Program for Cats These Rhode Island section is entitled the "Cat Identification Program." Under this law, cats are required to display some form of identification (tag, tattoo, etc.) in an effort to reduce the feral/stray cat problem. The law reduces the retention period for cats impounded without some form of identification.

Pages