Results
| Title | Citation | Alternate Citation | Summary | Type |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| MD - Swap Meets - § 19-105. Sales or other transfers of dogs or cats at public places | MD Code, Business Regulation, § 19-105 | MD BUS REG § 19-105 | This 2016 law states that a person may not offer for sale, sell, offer to transfer, transfer, barter, trade, or auction a dog or cat at any public place, including a street, parking lot, carnival, swap meet, or fair, among others. The act does not apply to an animal welfare organization or animal control unit displaying dogs or cats for adoption or a prearranged sale of a dog by a dog breeder if not a recurring event. Violation results in a $500 civil penalty for a first violation, a $1,000 civil penalty for a second violation, and a civil penalty for a $1,500 for a third or subsequent violation. | Statute |
| Rule v. Fort Dodge Animal Health, Inc. | 604 F.Supp.2d 288 (D.Mass.,2009) | 2009 WL 678744 (D.Mass.) |
The plaintiff brought this action against Defendants Fort Dodge Animal Health, Inc. and Wyeth Corporation, seeking economic damages suffered from the purchase and injection of her dog with ProHeart® 6 to prevent heartworm. The complaint alleged products liability/failure to warn, breach of implied warranty of merchantability, and violation of state deceptive business practices, among others. In 2004, defendants recalled ProHeart® 6 in response to a request by FDA due to reported adverse reactions. This Court found that Massachusetts law follows the traditional “economic loss rule,” where such losses are not recoverable in in tort and strict liability actions where there has been no personal injury or property damage. Here, the plaintiff was barred from recovering because she has not alleged any personal injury or property damage under her products liability claim. Further, plaintiff failed to show that defendants' deceptive act caused some injury and compsensable loss. Defendants' motion to dismiss was granted. |
Case |
| MN - Veterinary - Chapter 156. Veterinarians. Board of Veterinary Medicine. | M.S.A. § 156.001 - 20 | MN ST § 156.001 - 20 | 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. | Statute |
| HI - Wildlife - Chapter 183D. Wildlife. | H R S § 183D-1 - 66 | HI ST § 183D-1 - § 183D-66 | These statutes comprise Hawaii's wildlife provisions. | Statute |
| Staff is conducting a procedure on a night monkey placed on a dirty table | Slideshow Images | |||
| Bogart v. Chapell | 396 F.3d 548 (4th Cir., 2005) |
A woman was housing hundreds of animals in her residential home, the animals were seized and more than two hundred of them were euthanized. The woman brought a section 1983 claim against the county sheriff's department and human society. The trial court granted defendants summary judgment and the Court of Appeals affirmed holding no viable due process claim existed arising from the euthanization. |
Case | |
| Robinson v. Pezzat | 818 F.3d 1 (D.C. Cir. 2016) | 2016 WL 1274044 (D.C. Cir. Apr. 1, 2016) | Plaintiff filed suit against two police officers and the District of Columbia after the officers shot and killed her dog while executing a warrant to search her home. She brought a § 1983 claim, alleging that the officers seized her property in violation of the Fourth Amendment. The Court of Appeals reversed the District Court’s ruling for summary judgment, holding that a jury could find in favor of the plaintiff based on her witness testimony that the dog was lying down when it was first shot. Additionally, the court maintained summary judgment for the second police officer, McLeod, who shot and killed the dog after it bit Officer Pezzat and charged forward. | Case |
| Alternatives Research & Development Foundation v. Glickman | 101 F.Supp.2d 7 (D.D.C.,2000) |
In this case, the plaintiffs, a non-profit organization, a private firm and an individual, alleged that the defendants, the USDA and APHIS violated the mandate of the Animal Welfare Act (AWA) by promulgating regulations that exclude birds, mice and rats from the definition of “animal” under the Act. Defendants moved to dismiss, arguing that all three plaintiffs lack standing to bring suit. Defendants also moved to dismiss on the grounds that the exclusion of the three species is within the agency's Congressionally delegated discretion, not subject to judicial review. The court denied defendant's motion, holding that based on Lujan , defendants challenge to standing failed. Further, the AWA does not grant the USDA "unreviewable discretion" to determine what animals are covered under the AWA. |
Case | |
| MA - Exotic pet, breeding - Chapter 131. Inland Fisheries and Game and Other Natural Resources. | M.G.L.A. 131 § 23 | MA ST 131 § 23 | Massachusetts bans private possession of exotic pets, and requires licenses for those who deal and propagate wild species for other reasons. The Massachusetts director of the Division of Fisheries and Wildlife also issues a list of exempted species for which no permit is needed. | Statute |
| DE - Ordinances - Local ordinances (dogs) | 7 Del.C. § 1740 - Repealed by 77 Laws 2010, ch. 428, § 5, eff. July 1, 2010 | DE ST TI 7 § 1740 | [Repealed in 20210]. This Delaware statutes provides that nothing shall prevent a local municipality from enacting measures or a program for the control of dangerous or potentially dangerous dogs. | Statute |