Hot answers tagged

16

Short Answer This is governed by state law (for state law enforcement officers granting this authority) or federal law (in the case of authority granted by a federal law enforcement officer), so the details may vary from case to case. In many circumstances, however, a law enforcement officer has the authority to temporarily 'grant' his authority to another ...


6

This is governed by state law. For example, regulations in the state of Washington allow veterinarians to euthanize wildlife under certain circumstances, and in a separate regulation, Only a law enforcement officer or individuals or entities authorized by the department may euthanize an animal injured in a motor vehicle collision and that deer or elk may be ...


4

This is an objective test When a law requires “worry” (or any other state of mind), it is usually not the state of mind of the particular person but of a reasonable person in the same circumstances. The law does not ask “Were you worried?”, it asks “Would a reasonable person in your situation have been worried?” The fact that you have cynophobia is ...


3

It could be deemed dangerously out of control A court could also decide that your dog is dangerously out of control if either of the following apply: it attacks someone’s animal the owner of an animal thinks they could be injured if they tried to stop your dog attacking their animal You can get an unlimited fine or be sent to prison for up to 6 months (or ...


3

Most states have a law such as Washington's RCW 16.52, designed to protect the welfare of animals. There are provisions against starving an animal, and provisions allowing the authorities to intervene, so that an animal care or control agency can deem that the horse is not being fed properly. They can then remove the animal to feed it. There is also a ...


3

Rob is responsible. No Bull! Around the world, the law of wandering cattle depends on the details. New Zealand is no different. This case is covered by s 26 of the Impounding Act of 1955, Damages for Trespass. As you said, S 26(1)(d) says Bob is entitled to damages whenever his "land (whether fenced or unfenced) is situated in a city." This is ...


2

It depends on whether "person" means "owner" If Bob is liable, it's not under the Impounding Act of 1955. In that Act, the occupier of land is allowed, but not required to impound trespassing animals. This is made clear in s 21 of the Act, which says "the occupier...may seize and impound any stock trespassing on the land." A ...


2

There are laws against animal cruelty What counts as cruel is a social convention that changes over time. It is a fundamental principle of common law jurisdictions (like most of the united-states) that courts have the power to interpret (and re-interpret) the law so that as society’s standards change, so does the law.


1

Criminal liability The relevant legislation here is the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991, particularly Sections 3 and 10. If a dog is dangerously out of control in any place in England or Wales (whether or not a public place)— (a)the owner; and (b)if different, the person for the time being in charge of the dog, is guilty of an offence Defined as: For the purposes ...


1

No: these sorts of arguments should be taken to a legislature, not a court In the United States, the fact that something is immoral does not make it illegal—there must be a specific law prohibiting it. In this case, the suit was over the negative effects to the residents, such as stench, flies, and truck traffic, which allegedly violated the law. One judge ...


1

I wanted to add a piece to @user6726 comment for anyone that comes across this answer which both of you may also find helpful. IANAL so I defer, and your local animal control, authority figure, etc may not be smart enough to know the difference, but... If you forego the propagation (breeding, I believe) and trapping licenses (there appear to be many others ...


Only top voted, non community-wiki answers of a minimum length are eligible