United States
Displaying 3021 - 3030 of 4805
Title |
Summary |
|---|---|
| OK - Rehabilitation, wildlife - Chapter 25 Wildlife Rules | The following Oklahoma regulations detail that a license is needed for any person who wishes to rehabilitate wildlife. A person must renew this license annually for a fee of ten (10) dollars unless that person has violated any of these provisions or was found not to be taking proper care of the animal during the animal's rehabilitation. In such a case, a person must wait a minimum of one year before that person can renew his or her license. These regulations also relieve the Department of Wildlife from liability and costs incurred by the licensee. Additionally, these regulations require a licensee to report any listed endangered or threatened species; require a record of veterinary visits; require a record of the type of species lodged at the facility; require proper facilities; and require proper release of rehabilitated animals and proper disposal of animals that cannot be rehabilitated. |
| OK - Research - Chapter 13. Use of Unclaimed Animals for Scientific Investigation and Education. | These Oklahoma statutes provide the rules for scientific or medical research facilities that use animals obtained from animal shelters or dog pounds. Among the provisions are licensing procedures, inspection requirements, municipal ordinance requirements relating to duration that animals must first be impounded, and a provision specifying that anyone who fails to undertake the duties required by the act is subject to a misdemeanor. Notably, a municipality must provide that an owner of an animal who voluntarily delivers it to a public pound has the right to specify that it not be used for scientific research; it shall be the duty of the pound superintendent to tag such animal properly and to make certain that such animal is not delivered to an institution for scientific purposes. However, institution is immune from liability resulting from an improper delivery to such an institution. |
| OK - Restaurant, animals - 310:257-11-54. Prohibiting animals |
This Oklahoma regulation relates to animals in food establishments. Subsection (d) states that dogs and cats may be allowed in outdoor dining areas, provided the dog or cat is controlled by the owner or handler of the animal and nine conditions are met. Among the conditions include a requirement for a separate entrance to the outdoor dining area, a prohibition on direct contact with the animals by employees, a process to keep the area clean from animal excrement, and a requirement that food and water receptacles for the animals be single-use, disposable containers. |
| OK - Trust - § 199. Validity of a trust for the care of domestic or pet animals. | Oklahoma enacted a "pet trust" law in 2010. The law provides that a trust for the care of designated domestic or pet animals is valid and terminates when no living animal is covered by the trust. If no trustee is named, the court shall appoint one. |
| OK - Veterinarian Issues - Professional Conduct | The following acts and/or omissions shall be considered unprofessional conduct and shall constitute grounds for disciplinary action by the Oklahoma Board of Veterinary Medical Examiners. |
| OK - Veterinary - Chapter 15. Oklahoma Veterinary Practice Act. | These are the state's veterinary practice laws. Among the provisions include licensing requirements, laws concerning the state veterinary board, veterinary records laws, and the laws governing disciplinary actions for impaired or incompetent practitioners. |
| OK - Wildlife - Part 5. Possession of Wildlife. | Under these Oklahoma statutes, no person may possess any wildlife or parts thereof during the closed season, any endangered or threatened species or parts thereof at any time, or any native bear or native cat that will grow to reach the weight of 50 lbs. or more, with exceptions. A conviction could result in a fine of $100-$500 and/or by imprisonment up to 30 days. In addition, no person may buy, barter, trade, or sell all or any part of any fish or wildlife or the nest or eggs of any bird protected by law, with exceptions. A first violation could result in a fine of $100 to $500 and/or by imprisonment up to 60 days. |
| OK - Wildlife - Part 6. Transportation of Wildlife | Under these Oklahoma statutes, no common carrier may transport any wildlife or endangered or rare species, with exceptions. A violation could result in a fine of $25 to $100. In addition, no person may transport into or out of Oklahoma any wildlife or parts thereof, nests of wildlife, their eggs or their young, or any endangered or threatened species, with exceptions. A violation could result in a fine of $50 to $200, and/or imprisonment of 10 to 60 days. |
| OK - Wildlife - § 5-601. Wildlife breeders' sale and transportation of wildlife; tags for selling; invoices; records | This Oklahoma statute permits all licensed wildlife breeders to sell and transport any live wildlife for propagation purposes as well as to sell and transport live or dead wildlife for food upon compliance with certain requirements. |
| Olier v. Bailey | Plaintiff was attacked and chased by a domestic goose in Defendant’s yard. As Plaintiff attempted to flee, she fell and broke her arm. Plaintiff sued Defendant in the County Court of Jackson County under a theory of premises liability and, alternatively, under the dangerous-propensity rule. The trial court granted summary judgment because it found that Plaintiff was a licensee on Defendant's property and that Defendant did not breach her duty of care toward Plaintiff. It also denied relief under the dangerous-propensity rule because there was no evidence that the particular goose that bit Plaintiff ever had exhibited dangerous propensities prior to the incident. Plaintiff appealed to the Jackson County Circuit Court, which affirmed. Plaintiff then filed the instant appeal. The Supreme Court of Mississippi held that, while Plaintiff cannot, as a matter of law, pursue her claim under her theory of general premises liability, she can proceed under the dangerous-propensity theory because the court found an issue of fact regarding whether Defendant was on notice of her geese's alleged dangerous propensity. Accordingly, the Supreme Court affirmed the trial court judgment in part, reversed it in part, and remanded for further proceedings. |