Results
| Title | Citation | Alternate Citation | Agency Citation | Summary | Type |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Hohenstein v. Dodds | 10 N.W.2d 236 (Minn. 1943) | 215 Minn. 348 (1943) | This is an action against a licensed veterinarian to recover damages for his alleged negligence in the diagnosis and treatment of plaintiff's pigs. Plaintiff alleged defendant-veterinarian negligently vaccinated his purebred pigs for cholera. The court held that a n expert witness's opinion based on conflicting evidence which he is called upon to weigh is inadmissible. Further, a n expert witness may not include the opinion of another expert witness as basis for his own opinion. | Case | |
| Woodside Village v. Hertzmark | 1993 WL 268293 (Conn. 1993) | 4 NDLR P 104 | The question in this case is whether federal and state laws outlawing discrimination in housing prohibit the eviction of a mentally disabled defendant from his federally subsidized apartment because of his failure to comply with the plaintiff's pet policy. The plaintiff here had disabilities including schizophrenia and severe learning disabilities. The plaintiff-landlord allowed tenants to keep pets, but required pet care, which included walking the dogs in a designated area and requiring that tenants use a "pooper scooper" to clean up behind their pets. The tenant-defendant here does not dispute that he failed to comply, but claims the plaintiff-landlord, as a recipient of federal funds, failed to reasonably accommodate his disability. The court found that plaintiff-landlord did in fact accommodate the defendant-tenant's disability by either waiving the provisions of its pet policy or permitting the defendant to build a fenced in area for the dog in the rear of the defendant's apartment. The eviction here was not based on the fact that defendant-tenant possesses a dog, but on his "demonstrated inability to comply with the plaintiff's pet policy." This, said the court, put other residents' health, safety and comfort at risk. | Case | |
| Rabies Vaccination and Exemption Laws for Dogs | This map describes state rabies vaccination laws with those states that allow owners to seek an exemption (opt-out) from vaccination requirements. To date (2023), only 16 states have laws or regulations that allow owners to seek a medical exemption from having their dogs vaccinated for rabies. One state (Hawaii) has no laws or regulations that require vaccination on a statewide basis. Nine states only require rabies vaccinations for IMPORTED animals above a certain age (usually 3 months old). The remaining majority (25 states) require vaccination of dogs against the rabies virus by a certain age, with booster shots at certain intervals (Georgia REQUIRES counties to implement laws and also requires imported dogs to be vaccinated: https://www.animallaw.info/administrative/ga-rabies-40-13-2-19-pets). THIS MAP DOES NOT EXAMINE RABIES LAWS AT THE LOCAL (CITY OR COUNTY) LEVEL. MOST CITIES AND COUNTIES HAVE AN ADDITIONAL OR SEPARATE RABIES VACCINATION REQUIREMENT. Readers should search their municipal codes or contact their city or county clerk's office to learn about local rabies laws. | State map | |||
| Animal Legal Defense Fund v. Reynolds | 297 F.Supp.3d 901 (S.D. Iowa, 2018) | 297 F.Supp.3d 901 | Plaintiffs, a collection of local and national non-profit organizations brought this action alleging that Iowa Code § 717A.3A, which criminalizes agrigcultural facility fraud by either obtaining access to an agricultural facility on false pretenses or making a false statement or false representation in regard to the application or agreement to be employed by an agricultural facility, impeded their ability to advocate for their respective causes. Some of the non-profit organizations listed as plaintiffs, engaged in undercover investigations where investigators serve as employees at argricultural facilities to gather information about the inner workings of slaughterhouses and other facilities. The plaintiffs alleged that the Iowa statute was unconstitutional on its face becuase it violated the First Amendment and the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The Discrict Court determined that the plaintiffs have standing to make their claim and have an injury sufficient to suppor their standing. The defendants sought a motion to dismiss. The District Court ultimately denied the motion to dismiss with respect to the First Amendment claim and granted the motion to dismiss with respect to the Equal Protection claim. | Case | |
| OK - Commercial Breeder Act Regulations - Chapter 55. Commercial Pet Breeders | OK ADC 35:55-1-1 to 35:55-7-6 | Okla. Admin. Code 35:55-1-1 to 35:55-7-6 | Pursuant to the authority granted in the Oklahoma Commercial Breeders Act, these Oklahoma Department of Agriculture, Food, and Forestry regulations out line the licensing procedures, the standards of care, the transportation, and the record keeping provisions Oklahoma commercial breeders must follow. | Administrative | |
| WA - Assistance Animal - Assistance Animal/Guide Dog Laws | West's RCWA 9.91.170 - 175; 28A.642.010; 49.60.010 - 040, 215, 218, 222; 224; 225; 49.60.370 - 380; 49.90.010; 70.84.010 - 900 | WA ST 9.91.170 - 175; 28A.642.010; 49.60.010 - 040, 215, 218, 222, 224, 225; 49.60.370 - 380; 49.90.010; 0.84.010 - 900 | The following statutes comprise the state's relevant assistance animal and guide dog laws. | Statute | |
| VA - Virginia Beach - Chapter 1 General Provisions and Chapter 5: Animals and Fowl (ARTICLE V: ANIMAL WELFARE. DIVISION 3: PROHIBITED ACTS) | Virginia Beach City Code §§ 1-9, 5-540 |
Under this Virginia Beach ordinance, if a person knows or has reason to believe a dog is a guide dog or a leader dog and that person, without just cause, willfully impedes or interferes with said dog, then that person is guilty of a Class 3 misdemeanor and is subject to fines not to exceed more than $500. However, if a person knows or has reason to believe a dog is a guide dog or a leader dog and that person, without just cause, willfully injures said dog, then that person is guilty of a class 1 misdemeanor and is subject to fines not to exceed more than $2,500. |
Local Ordinance | ||
| Fleet v District Court of New South Wales | [1999] NSWCA 363 |
The appellant's dog was removed by police officers and later euthanised. The dog was emaciated and suffering from numerous ailments. The appellant was charged and convicted with an animal cruelty offence and failure to state his name and address when asked. On appeal, it was found that the court had failed to address the elements of the animal cruelty offence and that the charge of failing to state name and address could not stand. |
Case | ||
| Callahan v. Woods | 736 F.2d 1269 (9th Cir. 1984) |
Plaintiff alleged the requirement that his infant daughter receive a social security number as a prerequisite to obtain public benefits infringed on his free exercise of religion. Since the court held that the the social security number requirement substantially interfered with plaintiff's free exercise of religious beliefs, the compelling interest test was applied to determine constitutionality of the regulation. This substantial burden/compelling interest test became the model for infringement of religious exercise claims, including those under the BGEPA. For application of this test to religious challenges to the BGEPA, see Detailed Discussion of Eagle Act . |
Case | ||
| ND - Hunting, Internet - § 20.1-01-35. Hunting through the internet prohibited--Penalty | NDCC 20.1-01-35 | ND ST 20.1-01-35 | This law prohibits hunting through the Internet or otherwise enabling such activity as described in the law. A person who violates this section is guilty of a class C felony. | Statute |