Nevada

Summary: Under this Nevada statute, unless otherwise provided by statute no person may possess any live wildlife unless he is licensed by the division to do so, capture live wildlife in this state to stock a commercial or noncommercial wildlife facility, or  possess or release from confinement any mammal for the purposes of hunting.  However, the provisions of this section do not apply to alternative livestock and products made therefrom.

Summary: Nevada has a law that specifically protects both bald (American) and golden eagles. The statute makes it illegal to possess or capture by whatever means either species. The law does allow for the taking of an eagle pursuant to permit only if the eagle has seriously injured agricultural or other interests, provided it is consistent with federal law and no other alternative is appropriate.

Summary: These statutes provide that the Legislature of Nevada has an interest in protecting native species from extinction and sets forth the authority to establish programs to protect designated species.  However, if a native species is found to be destructive under the statute, the statute provides for removal if appropriate.  Under statute, the ultimate responsibility for management rests with the governor for reviewing state programs and entering into interstate and federal agreements.

Summary: "Wildlife" means any wild mammal, wild bird, fish, reptile, amphibian, mollusk or crustacean found naturally in a wild state, whether indigenous to Nevada or not and whether raised in captivity or not.

Summary: Dogs, domestic animals and birds are considered personal property in Nevada.

Summary: This Nevada statute allows for a trust created for the care of one or more animals that are alive at the time of the settlor's death (note the statute does not state "domestic" or "pet" animal). Such a trust terminates upon the death of all animals covered by the terms of the trust. It further provides that a settlor's expression of intent must be liberally construed in favor of the creation of such a trust.

Summary: These Washoe County, Nevada ordinances prohibit any person from keeping an animal unless the area in which the animal lives is kept clean and free of offensive odors and animal wastes. Additionally, these ordinances also require that any person who wishes to keep more than 3 adult dogs or 7 adult cats obtain a permit; permit requirement, exemption, and revocation or suspension provisions are also included, as are the penalties for violating these provisions.

Summary: In this Nevada case, respondent Berosini claimed that two animal rights organizations, PETA and Performing Animal Welfare Society (PAWS), and three individuals defamed him and invaded his privacy. The trial court entered judgment on jury verdicts on the libel and invasion of privacy claims in the aggregate amount of $4.2 million. On appeal, this Court concluded that the evidence was insufficient to support the jury's verdict and reversed the judgment. The court found that the videotapes of Berosini beating his animal performers before the show was not libelous because they were not false or defamatory. The videotape was not “false” because it was an accurate portrayal of the manner in which Berosini disciplined his animals backstage before performances and it was not not defamatory because Berosini took the position that the shaking, punching, and beating that appear on the tape were necessary, appropriate and “justified” for the training, discipline, and control of show animals. With regard to his invasion of privacy claims, the videotaping did not invade the scope of Berosini's expectation of privacy because his asserted expectation was "freedom from distracting intrusion and interference with his animals and his pre-act disciplinary procedures." Thus, the filming did not intrude upon Berosini's expected seclusion.

Summary: In this Nevada case, an eleven-year-old boy who was a passerby was bitten by a dog. The jury found the owner liable, but trial court judge dismissed the landlord as a defendant. The Supreme Court found the landlord in this case could be liable under general tort obligations because he voluntarily undertook a duty to secure the neighborhood from harm by the dog after he made the tenant promise not to allow the dog outside unless chained. Thus, material questions of fact remained that precluded summary judgment as to whether the landlord breached his duty of care to the public where he allowed the tenant to remain with the dog and then failed to repair the gate that allowed the dog to escape and injure the plaintiff when it was left unchained.

Summary: Joe Riggi delivered his two unregistered Pomeranian dogs to the Armstrongs' Poodle Parlor to be bathed and groomed. The dogs died while in the care of the bailee. Riggi commenced this action to recover damages alleging that the dogs were worth more than $10,000. The issue on appeal was whether the trial court incorrectly interpreted the state court rule regarding attorney fees. Since the appellate court did in fact determine error, the case was remanded.