Summary: These Montana statutes provide the short title for the Nongame and Endangered Species Conservation Act, the definitions associated with the Act, and the legislative policy behind the Act.
These Montana statutes provide the short title for the Nongame and Endangered Species Conservation Act, the definitions associated with the Act, and the legislative policy behind the Act.
Summary: In Montana, a person may not operate an alternative livestock ranch without a license. Such ranches are defined as enclosed land upon which animals such as privately owned caribou, white-tailed deer, etc, are kept for purposes of obtaining, rearing in captivity, keeping, or selling. The rancher has reporting requirements. Failure to comply with provisions of the act may result in revocation of the license.
In Montana, a person may not operate an alternative livestock ranch without a license. Such ranches are defined as enclosed land upon which animals such as privately owned caribou, white-tailed deer, etc, are kept for purposes of obtaining, rearing in captivity, keeping, or selling. The rancher has reporting requirements. Failure to comply with provisions of the act may result in revocation of the license.
Summary: This law represents Montana's hunter harassment law. Under the law, a person may not intentionally interfere with the lawful taking of a wild animal or fishing by another, which includes disturbing a wild animal by engaging in actions or the placement of objects/substances to prevent its taking. This section does not prohibit a landowner or lessee from taking reasonable measures to prevent imminent danger to domestic livestock and equipment.
This law represents Montana's hunter harassment law. Under the law, a person may not intentionally interfere with the lawful taking of a wild animal or fishing by another, which includes disturbing a wild animal by engaging in actions or the placement of objects/substances to prevent its taking. This section does not prohibit a landowner or lessee from taking reasonable measures to prevent imminent danger to domestic livestock and equipment.
Summary: Under Montana State law, it is unlawful to buy, sell, or possess, or offer to buy, sell or possess any migratory game bird, game fish, or game animal. The exceptions include the possession and transportation of legally taken game animals, the sale or purchase of hides, heads or mounts of legally acquired game animals, and the possession of naturally shed antlers of game animals, among other exceptions.
Under Montana State law, it is unlawful to buy, sell, or possess, or offer to buy, sell or possess any migratory game bird, game fish, or game animal. The exceptions include the possession and transportation of legally taken game animals, the sale or purchase of hides, heads or mounts of legally acquired game animals, and the possession of naturally shed antlers of game animals, among other exceptions.
Summary: This Montana statute states that a trust for the care of a designated domestic or pet animal is valid (but for no longer than 21 years, even if the trust provides for a longer term). The trust terminates when no living animal is covered by the trust. Extrinsic evidence is admissible in determining the transferor's intent. Except as expressly provided otherwise in the trust instrument, no portion of the principal or income may be converted to the use of the trustee or to any use other than for the trust's purposes or for the benefit of a covered animal and a court may reduce the amount of the property transferred if it determines that that amount substantially exceeds the amount required for the intended use.
This Montana statute states that a trust for the care of a designated domestic or pet animal is valid (but for no longer than 21 years, even if the trust provides for a longer term). The trust terminates when no living animal is covered by the trust. Extrinsic evidence is admissible in determining the transferor's intent. Except as expressly provided otherwise in the trust instrument, no portion of the principal or income may be converted to the use of the trustee or to any use other than for the trust's purposes or for the benefit of a covered animal and a court may reduce the amount of the property transferred if it determines that that amount substantially exceeds the amount required for the intended use.
Summary: In Great Falls, Montana, it is unlawful for any person, persons, or family to keep, harbor or maintain in or on the same premises a total of more than 2 dogs over 6 months of age or 2 cats over 6 months of age without first obtaining a multiple animal permit. A person found violating this section is guilty of a misdemeanor, which is punishable by a maximum fine of $500.00. Other penalties may also apply.
In Great Falls, Montana, it is unlawful for any person, persons, or family to keep, harbor or maintain in or on the same premises a total of more than 2 dogs over 6 months of age or 2 cats over 6 months of age without first obtaining a multiple animal permit. A person found violating this section is guilty of a misdemeanor, which is punishable by a maximum fine of $500.00. Other penalties may also apply.
Summary: In Butte-Silver Bow County, Montana, it is unlawful for any dog, whether restrained or unrestrained, to be in certain public places unless the dog is assisting a sight or hearing impaired person. Additionally, license fees are waived for dogs trained to assist sight or hearing impaired persons, when such dogs are actually being used by sight or hearing impaired persons, but such dogs must still obtain a license and must still be vaccinated.
In Butte-Silver Bow County, Montana, it is unlawful for any dog, whether restrained or unrestrained, to be in certain public places unless the dog is assisting a sight or hearing impaired person. Additionally, license fees are waived for dogs trained to assist sight or hearing impaired persons, when such dogs are actually being used by sight or hearing impaired persons, but such dogs must still obtain a license and must still be vaccinated.
Summary: Defendant-veterinarian was contracted to castrate plaintiff’s horse. Post-surgical care resulted in a fatal infection of the horse. The court found that, indeed, expert testimony is required in malpractice cases, as negligence cannot be inferred from the existence of a loss. The court disagreed with plaintiff that defendant’s own "admissions" in his testimony at trial provided sufficient evidence of deviation from the standard of care to withstand a directed verdict by defendant. As to plaintiff’s argument regarding a lack of informed consent, the court noted that a medical malpractice claim premised on a theory of lack of informed consent is a separate cause of action rather than an "element" in an otherwise specifically alleged claim of professional negligence.
Defendant-veterinarian was contracted to castrate plaintiff’s horse. Post-surgical care resulted in a fatal infection of the horse. The court found that, indeed, expert testimony is required in malpractice cases, as negligence cannot be inferred from the existence of a loss. The court disagreed with plaintiff that defendant’s own "admissions" in his testimony at trial provided sufficient evidence of deviation from the standard of care to withstand a directed verdict by defendant. As to plaintiff’s argument regarding a lack of informed consent, the court noted that a medical malpractice claim premised on a theory of lack of informed consent is a separate cause of action rather than an "element" in an otherwise specifically alleged claim of professional negligence.
Summary: Plaintiff horse owner sought review of a judgment by the District Court of Yellowstone County, Thirteenth Judicial District (Montana), which entered a directed verdict in favor of defendant veterinarian on the owner's claims of professional negligence. On appeal, the court affirmed the trial court's decision, holding that the owner was required to prove the veterinarian's negligence by expert testimony, and that he failed to do so. In addition, the court The court found that the "defendant's admissions" exception to the expert testimony requirement did not apply because the veterinarian did not admit that he deviated from the standard of care.
Plaintiff horse owner sought review of a judgment by the District Court of Yellowstone County, Thirteenth Judicial District (Montana), which entered a directed verdict in favor of defendant veterinarian on the owner's claims of professional negligence. On appeal, the court affirmed the trial court's decision, holding that the owner was required to prove the veterinarian's negligence by expert testimony, and that he failed to do so. In addition, the court The court found that the "defendant's admissions" exception to the expert testimony requirement did not apply because the veterinarian did not admit that he deviated from the standard of care.
Summary: In McPherson v. Schlemer , plaintiff’s cows were killed by defendant when they wandered onto the highway. The court determined that damages were calculated at the present and future profits for fair market value.
In McPherson v. Schlemer , plaintiff’s cows were killed by defendant when they wandered onto the highway. The court determined that damages were calculated at the present and future profits for fair market value.
