United States

Displaying 4721 - 4730 of 4785
Titlesort ascending Summary
Akron ex rel. Christman-Resch v. Akron


City of Akron, Ohio cat owners filed suit against city, its mayor, and city council president, seeking declaratory judgment that new city code sections, relating to the trapping and euthanization of free-roaming cats, were unconstitutional.  After the Court of Common Pleas, Summit County granted summary judgment to defendants, the cat owners appealed.  The Court of Appeals held that the city's ordinances relating to the trapping and euthanization of free-roaming cats did not violate cat owners' substantive due process rights.  Further, the ordinances which allowed a cat to be euthanized after three business days following the date of impoundment, did not violate cat owners' procedural due process rights or right to equal protection.  Finally, the ordinances, which allowed city to seize free-roaming cats in response to complaints, did not violate the Fourth Amendment and city's actions were covered by sovereign immunity.
AKERS v. SELLERS


This Indiana case involves an action in replevin by John W. Akers against his former wife, Stella Sellers. The controversy at issue was ownership and possession of a Boston bull terrier dog. At the time of the divorce decree, the dog was not part of the property division and was instead left at the marriage domicile in custody of the former wife. Appellant-Akers claimed that legal title and the dog's best interests rested with him and unsuccessfully brought a suit in replevin in the lower court. On appeal, this Court held that there was no sufficient evidence to overturn the lower court's determination. The judgment was affirmed.
AK - Zoo - § 09.65.180. Civil liability of zoos The Alaska law provides that, except as provided in (b), a person who owns or operates a zoo is strictly liable for injury to a person or property if the injury is caused by an animal owned by or in the custody of the zoo.
AK - Veterinary reporting - 12 AAC 68.100. Confidential relationship. This Alaska regulation appears to allow permissive reporting of suspected animal abuse by veterinarians.
AK - Veterinary immunity - § 09.65.097. Civil liability for emergency veterinary care This Alaska law provides that a licensed veterinarian who renders emergency care to an injured or ill animal that reasonably appears to need emergency care to avoid serious harm or death is not liable for civil damages as a result of an act or omission in rendering emergency aid. This section does not apply to service rendered at the request of an owner of the animal and does not preclude liability for civil damages as a result of gross negligence or reckless or intentional misconduct.
AK - Veterinary - Chapter 98. Veterinarians. 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.
AK - Trusts - § 13.12.907. Honorary trusts; trusts for pets This Alaska statute provides that trusts for the continuing care of designated domestic animals are valid, provided they are a duration of 21 years or less. The trust terminates when a living animal is no longer covered by the trust. Any remaining trust funds do not go to the trustee, but rather transfer by the order stipulated in the statute.
AK - Rabies - 7 AAC 27.022. Rabies vaccination and quarantine. This Alaska regulation provides that a dog, cat, or ferret is required to be vaccinated for rabies in accordance with schedules in the Compendium of Animal Rabies Prevention and Control, 2011.
AK - Ordinances - § 03.55.070. Power of village council to control dogs This Alaska statute enables a village council the power to destroy loose dogs in the village and otherwise control dogs to the extent authorized first class cities. The council may impose and enforce the provisions of a dog control ordinance in the total area within 20 miles of the village.
AK - Initiatives - Ballot Measure 9 (wolf trapping) This bill would have prohibited a person from using a snare with the intent of trapping a wolf and appeared on the 2000 ballot. It would also have prohibited a person from possessing, buying, selling, or offering to sell the skin of a wolf known by the person to have been caught with a snare. Breaking the law would have been a Class A misdemeanor. The measure failed with only 37.3% of the vote.

Pages