Results
Displaying 6161 - 6170 of 6822
| Title | Citation | Alternate Citation | Agency Citation | Summary | Type |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| AR - Emergency - § 20-13-217. Gabo's Law--Police dogs--Injured on duty | A.C.A. § 20-13-217 | AR ST § 20-13-217 | This section shall be known and may be cited as “Gabo's Law." An emergency medical services personnel or an emergency medical services provider may transport a police dog injured in the course of a law enforcement or correctional agency's work to a veterinary hospital or clinic if there is not a person requiring immediate medical attention or transport at the time. | Statute | |
| Argentina - Widlife - Ley 26.600, 2010 | Ley 26.600 | This Ley approved the Inter-American Convention for the Protection and Conservation of Sea Turtles, adopted in Caracas, Venezuela. | Statute | ||
| NY - Rehabilitators, wildlife - Part 184. Wildlife Rehabilitators. | 6 NY ADC 184.1 - 7 | 6 NYCRR 184.1 - 7 | These New York regulations concern the qualifications for appointment as a state wildlife rehabilitator. Section 184.1 first states that, "The purpose of this Part is to establish a specially trained group of individuals, collectively called wildlife rehabilitators, to provide for the care of injured and debilitated wildlife so that such wildlife may be returned to the wild." Under the chapter, "wildlife rehabilitation" means the practice of providing care for injured or debilitated wildlife, including their capture, housing, feeding, emergency treatment and release to the wild. | Administrative | |
| IN - Animal Sacrifice - THE TELANGANA ANIMALS AND BIRDS SACRIFICES PROHIBITION ACT, 1950 | XXXII OF 1950 | The Act, specific to the South Indian state of Telangana, prohibits animal and bird sacrifice at places of public religious worship or in congregations associated with religious worship in a public street. Persons sacrificing animals can be imprisoned under this law. The law also prohibits persons from officiating at such animal sacrifices. Such persons can be fined. Animal sacrifice or officiating at an animal sacrifice is a cognizable offence—the accused can be arrested without a warrant. | Statute | ||
| Amburgey v. Sauder | 605 N.W.2d 84 (Mich. 1999) |
Plaintiff was bitten by a horse as she walked through a stable. The court determined that Plaintiff was a “participant” for the purposes of the Equine Activity Liability Act (EALA), and thus the Defendant stables owner was insulated from liability arising out of the unanticipated, abnormal behavior of the horse. |
Case | ||
| UT - License - § 10-8-65. Dogs--License and tax--Destruction, sale or other disposal | U.C.A. 1953 § 10-8-65 | UT ST § 10-8-65 | This Utah statute, under the chapter relating the general powers of all cities, provides that cities may license, tax, regulate or prohibit the keeping of dogs, and authorize the destruction, sale or other disposal of the same when at large contrary to ordinance. | Statute | |
| NY - Dogs - Consolidated Dog Laws | McKinney's Agriculture and Markets Law § 106 - 127, 331 - 332, 400 - 411; McKinney's ECL §§ 11-0529, 11-0901 - 0928, 11-2117; McKinney's General Business Law §§ 399-aa, 751 - 755; McKinney's General Municipal Law § 88, 209-cc; | McKinney's Town Law § 130; McKinney's General Obligations Law § 11-107; McKinney's Lien Law § 183; McKinney's Public Health Law § 1310; § 505-a; § 2140 - 2146; McKinney's Vehicle and Traffic Law § 601; McKinney's State Law § 90; | These New York statutes comprise the state's dog laws. Among the provisions include state licensing requirements, the sale of dogs by pet dealers, rabies control laws, and provisions related to dogs and hunting. | Statute | |
| Whiteaker v. City of Southgate | 651 F. Supp. 3d 893 (E.D. Mich. 2023) | 2023 WL 317457 (E.D. Mich. Jan. 19, 2023) | The plaintiff (“Whiteaker”) filed this action against Defendant, the City of Southgate, Michigan for violations of the Fair Housing Act (“FHA”) and Michigan's Persons with Disabilities Civil Rights Act (“PDCRA”). Specifically, Whiteaker contends that the City violated the FHA by denying Whiteaker's request for an exemption from City Ordinance 610.13, which prohibits City residents from maintaining chickens (or other typical farm animals) on their property. The events underlying this action began after Whiteaker moved to Southgate in early March 2021. On March 24, 2021, Whiteaker was issued a citation by the City for a violation of Ordinance 610.13. Whiteaker appeared in district court to defend himself, claiming he had a right to keep the chickens under Michigan's Right to Farm Act. However, it turned out the Right to Farm law was inapplicable because Whiteaker's chicken coop was within 250 feet of a dwelling. Thus, Whiteaker was issued a second citation in May and was denied a permit to keep the chickens by the city. Since Whiteaker was a longtime sufferer of depression and anxiety, he sought a waiver from the ordinance as a reasonable accommodation for his disability and presented a letter from his mental health provider as support. Again, his request was denied by the City. In the instant motion for summary judgement by the City, the court examined the "reasonableness" of Whiteaker's request for a reasonable accommodation under the FHA. The court found that the balancing test required under the FHA, to wit, weighing Whiteaker's disability-related need to keep the chickens as a source of comfort and support against the City's claims that the chickens pose a threat to public health, is a triable issue of fact. Indeed, the court observed that the City's citation of documentation from the CDC only lists the "potential dangers" chickens can pose to public health without sufficient evidence to supports its claim that the chickens will burden the City financially and administratively. In contrast, Whiteaker claims a disability and has provided evidence of his disability. Likewise, as to the remaining elements of necessity and equal opportunity for a reasonable accommodation claim, the court again cites Whiteaker's evidentiary support for his claim of disability and need for the chickens to alleviate those symptoms against the fact the City has not presented any testimony, affidavits, or "evidence of any kind" to support its claim. Thus, the court denied the motion for summary judgment. | Case | |
| Diercks v. Wisconsin | 2006 WL 3761333 (E.D. Wis. 2006) |
An owner of a greyhound kennel was suspected of giving her dogs illegal steroids because an informant told the government agency this was happening. The particular steroid used was impossible to detect using urine samples, so the government agency, without a warrant, installed covert video cameras in the kennel and that way determined that the owner was injecting her dogs. The owner claimed this violated her Fourth Amendment search and seizure rights, and the court agreed; however, the agency actors were not liable because the state of the law on this issue was not clear and it was reasonable for them to think they could legally install the video surveillance system. |
Case | ||
| Colombia - Cruelty - LEY 1774, 2016 | Ley 1774 de 2016 | This law modifies the Animal Protection Statute Ley 84, 1989 by modifying the Civil Code and the Criminal Code. Ley 1774 changes the status of the animals in the legal system, by declaring that all animals are ‘sentient beings’, subject to special protection against pain and suffering. The duty of animal protection, is established as a collective responsibility where the government and the citizens are required to assist and protect animals. Citizens have the duty to report when an animal is being subject to cruelty. | Statute |