Results

Displaying 1 - 10 of 6592
Title Citation Alternate Citation Agency Citation Summary Type
US - AWA - House Debate 1966 AWA House Resolution 821

This the debate in the House of Representatives for the initial adoption of the Animal Welfare Act in 1966. For discussion of Act see, Overview

Administrative
Motta v. Menendez 46 A.D.3d 685 (N.Y.A.D. 2 Dept., 2007) 2007 N.Y. Slip Op. 09778, 2007 WL 4328459 (N.Y.A.D. 2 Dept.), 847 N.Y.S.2d 612

This New York case arose following an incident that occurred on December 13, 2003, in which the appellant's two pit bull terriers entered the petitioner's property, and one of appellant's dogs ("Duke") attacked and injured the petitioner's pet dog. Following a special proceeding, the lower court determined that appellant's pit bull terrier named “Duke” was a dangerous dog and directed that it be destroyed. On appeal, the Supreme Court, Appellate Division found that the dangerous dog statute in effect on December 13, 2003, did not provide that one dog attacking another was conduct subject to the penalty of destruction (Agriculture and Markets Law former §§ 108, 121).

Case
Connecticut General Statutes 1918: Chapter 329: Section 6268 Conn. Gen. Stat. § 6268 (1918) Section 6268 of Chapter 329 from the 1918 General Laws of Connecticut covers the unlawful injury to certain property of another.  Specifically, the statute states the punishment for hurting, maiming, poisoning anther's cattle, ox, horse, and mule. Statute
MD - Wildlife - § 10-427. Organized killing contests prohibited MD Code, Natural Resources, § 10-427 MD NAT RES § 10-427 This Maryland statute, enacted in 2021, states that a person may not sponsor, conduct, or participate in a contest organized in the State that has the objective of killing a coyote, fox, or raccoon for prizes or monetary rewards. A person is subject to a fine of $50 for each coyote, fox, or raccoon killed in violation of this law. Statute
UT - Nuisance Animals - Chapter 18. Furbearers. U.C.A. 1953 § 23A-14-201 - 203 (formerly U.C.A. 1953 § 23-18-1 to 6) UT ST § 23A-14-201 - 203 (formerly UT ST § 23-18-1 to 6) These Utah statutes require a furbearer license to take furbearers, except for red fox, striped skunk, or beavers that are doing damage to private property (with authorization). Fur dealers must have a fur dealer certificate of registration from the Division of Wildlife Resources. Statute
Anderson v. Christopherson 816 N.W.2d 626 (Minn. 2012) 2012 WL 2913222 (Minn.)

This appeal asks two questions: whether defendant-dog owners (Christophersons) were strictly liable under Minn.Stat. § 347.22 for plaintiff Anderson's injuries suffered when he attempted to break up a fight between defendants' and plaintiff's dogs; and (2) whether one of the defendants was an "owner" for purposes of this law. In the case at hand, the court found that the events leading to Anderson's injury could produce three reasonable alternative inferences such that summary judgment was inappropriate. The court found there was an issue whether the father Dennis Christopherson was "harboring" the dog at the home for purposes of the animal owner liability statute.

Case
NO - Aquaculture - Regulations concerning abattoirs and processing plants for aquaculture animals Chap. 1 - 5, Regulations concerning abattoirs and processing plants for aquaculture animals

The purpose of these regulations is to promote good health in aquaculture animals and ensure good fish welfare.

Statute
Colleen Harrington v. David Hovanec, and DOES 1 through 20 inclusive This California complaint for damages raises five causes of action: (1) gross negligence; (2) trespass to chattel; (3) conversion; (4) intentional infliction of emotional distress; and (5) violation of California Civil Code Section 3340 (related to damage to animals as property). The lawsuit arose from the negligent and/or intentional shooting of plaintiff's dog by defendant in May of 2004. According to the complaint, plaintiff's dog was shot at least thirteen times by defendant's two different guns. Pleading
Wilkison v. City of Arapahoe 926 N.W.2d 441 (Neb.,2019) 302 Neb. 968 (2019) Brooke Wilkison (Brooke) got an American Staffordshire Terrier (pit bull) in 2015. In 2016, the city of Arapahoe passed an ordinance regarding dangerous dogs which contained a restriction on owning a Rottweiler or an American Staffordshire Terrier within city limits. The ordinance allowed for dogs licensed prior to January 1, 2017 to be grandfathered in as acceptable. Brooke did not have his dog licensed prior to the that date. Law enforcement told Brooke he could not keep the dog. Brooke filed suit seeking a declaratory judgment and an injunction to prevent Arapahoe from implementing and enforcing the ordinance. The trial court found for Brooke and Arapahoe appealed. Arapahoe's first assignment of error is that the court erred by applying the Fair Housing Act (FHA) to the ordinance. The Court found that Arapahoe was not exempt from the strictures of the FHA. Arapahoe's second assignment of error was that the Court erred by enjoining enforcement of the ordinance against Brooke because Brooke's accommodation is not reasonable and necessary. The Court found that Brooke failed to meet his burden of proof that his requested accommodation is necessary for him to receive the same enjoyment from his home as a non-disabled person would receive. Brooke already owned another dog and the ordinance only covered certain dog breeds. Brooke's other claims for relief were remanded to the district court. In conclusion, the district court erred in entering a declaratory judgment and enjoining Arapahoe from enforcing the ordinance as applied to Brooke. Case
WV - Licenses - § 7-7-6d. Collection of head tax on dogs; duties of assessor and sheriff; W. Va. Code, § 7-7-6d WV ST § 7-7-6d This West Virginia statute provides that it is the duty of the county assessor at the time of assessment of the personal property within such county, to assess and collect a head tax of one dollar on each male or spayed female dog and of two dollars on each unspayed female dog. In addition to the above, the assessor and his deputies shall have the further duty of collecting any such head tax on dogs as may be levied by the ordinances of each and every municipality within the county. The tax also serves the function of providing a registration for the dog. Any person who refuses to pay the tax after a specified period may have his or her dog seized, which may then be sold or eventually destroyed. Statute

Pages