Summary: These New Hampshire statutes outline the Endangered Species Conservation Act. The definitions of the terms used in the Act are described especially with regard to what constitutes endangered and threatened species. Violation of the Act is accomplished by taking a protected species and incurs a misdemeanor penalty.
Summary: In New Hampshire, state policy mandates that service animals and the people they serve be kept together in cases of emergency. State emergency planning and training must take that requirement into account.
Summary: New Hampshire prohibits the hunting, capturing, killing, or possession of any bald or golden eagle or disturbing eagle nests and young.
Summary: The New Hampshire session laws from 1878, chapter 281, covers the state's cruelty to animals laws. Specifically, the law covers cruelty to animals and the treatment of animals during transportation.
The New Hampshire session laws from 1878, chapter 281, covers the state's cruelty to animals laws. Specifically, the law covers cruelty to animals and the treatment of animals during transportation.
Summary: Section 12 of Chapter 219 from New Hampshire Revised Statutes of 1843 covers cruelty to animals. Specifically, the statutes states what qualifies as cruelty to animals and the punishment for it.
Section 12 of Chapter 219 from New Hampshire Revised Statutes of 1843 covers cruelty to animals. Specifically, the statutes states what qualifies as cruelty to animals and the punishment for it.
Summary: These Portsmouth, New Hampshire ordinances provide licensing, inspection, and penalty provisions for milk, slaughterhouses, butchers and restaurants.
These Portsmouth, New Hampshire ordinances provide licensing, inspection, and penalty provisions for milk, slaughterhouses, butchers and restaurants.
Summary: The purpose of Moultonborough, New Hampshire's Leash Law is to keep all dogs under their owners' control in order to ensure against injury to persons, damages to property, or the creation of a nuisance. It is therefore unlawful to permit any dog to run at large in the town of Moultonborough. Anyone who violates this ordinance will be punished by a fine of $25 or more.
The purpose of Moultonborough, New Hampshire's Leash Law is to keep all dogs under their owners' control in order to ensure against injury to persons, damages to property, or the creation of a nuisance. It is therefore unlawful to permit any dog to run at large in the town of Moultonborough. Anyone who violates this ordinance will be punished by a fine of $25 or more.
Summary: The Defedant was convicted of the charge of cruelty to animals for the beating of his own horse. The Defendant appealed this descision to the Supreme Court of New Hampshire on two grounds. First, the lower court failed to instructe the jury that intoxication was a defense to the charge. Second, the lower court instructed the jury that the beating of an animal for training may at some point become malicious and illegal under that statute. The Court held the lower court was not in error and affirmed the decision.
The Defedant was convicted of the charge of cruelty to animals for the beating of his own horse. The Defendant appealed this descision to the Supreme Court of New Hampshire on two grounds. First, the lower court failed to instructe the jury that intoxication was a defense to the charge. Second, the lower court instructed the jury that the beating of an animal for training may at some point become malicious and illegal under that statute. The Court held the lower court was not in error and affirmed the decision.
Summary: In this New Hampshire case, a bicyclist brought suit against a dog owner under the state's strict liability statute for injuries he sustained when he fell from his bike after the owners' dog ran toward him. The jury awarded him $190,000 at trial. On appeal, this court found that the bicyclist's allegations were sufficient to sustain the jury's finding even though there was no evidence that the dog actually bit the plaintiff or made any physical contact. The Court held that there is nothing in the plain language of RSA 466:19 that would limit the statute's application actual bites or other direct physical contact. Instead, the statute makes dog owners strictly liable to “[a]ny person to whom ... damage may be occasioned by a dog not owned or kept by him.” RSA 466:19.
In this New Hampshire case, a bicyclist brought suit against a dog owner under the state's strict liability statute for injuries he sustained when he fell from his bike after the owners' dog ran toward him. The jury awarded him $190,000 at trial. On appeal, this court found that the bicyclist's allegations were sufficient to sustain the jury's finding even though there was no evidence that the dog actually bit the plaintiff or made any physical contact. The Court held that there is nothing in the plain language of RSA 466:19 that would limit the statute's application actual bites or other direct physical contact. Instead, the statute makes dog owners strictly liable to “[a]ny person to whom ... damage may be occasioned by a dog not owned or kept by him.” RSA 466:19.
Summary: Plaintiff horse owner appealed from the orders of the Merrimack County Superior Court (New Hampshire), which dismissed his action for veterinarian malpractice for failure to designate an expert medical witness to prove that the owner's horse was permanently injured, and that defendant veterinarians' negligence caused such injury. On appeal, the court agreed that no medical expert testimony was necessary to determine whether a veterinarian was negligent in operating on the wrong animal. However, the court held that expert testimony was necessary to assist jurors in this case on the issues of causation and injury, and generally as to the standards of veterinary care.
Plaintiff horse owner appealed from the orders of the Merrimack County Superior Court (New Hampshire), which dismissed his action for veterinarian malpractice for failure to designate an expert medical witness to prove that the owner's horse was permanently injured, and that defendant veterinarians' negligence caused such injury. On appeal, the court agreed that no medical expert testimony was necessary to determine whether a veterinarian was negligent in operating on the wrong animal. However, the court held that expert testimony was necessary to assist jurors in this case on the issues of causation and injury, and generally as to the standards of veterinary care.
