Results
| Title | Citation | Alternate Citation | Agency Citation | Summary | Type |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Citizens for Balanced Use v. Maurier | 303 P.3d 794 (Mont. 2013) | 2013 MT 166, 2013 MT 166, 370 Mont. 410, 2013 WL 3053594 |
Upon the Montana Department of Fish, Wildlife, and Parks’s decision to relocate a brucellosis-free herd of bison out of Yellowstone National Park and into tribal lands, plaintiffs sought an injunction to halt this movement until the department complied with MCA § 87-1-216. The District Court granted the plaintiffs a preliminary injunction. Upon appeal by defendants and defendant intervenors, however, the Supreme Court of Montana held that MCA § 87-1-216 did not apply and that the District Court relied on erroneous grounds for issuing a preliminary injunction under MCA § 27-19-201(2). The case was therefore reversed, the preliminary injunction vacated and the case was remanded back to the District Court.
|
Case | |
| KY - Liens - § 257.105. Sale of unclaimed animals held by veterinarian | KRS § 257.105 | Ky. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 257.105 | This statute deals with the sale of unclaimed animals after an animal is left with a licensed veterinarian after providing care to the animal. Under the statute, the veterinarian is able to sell the animal for reasonable value if the animal is left unclaimed for ten days or more. Once the veterinarian determines that he or she will be selling the animal, he or she must provide notice to the owner prior to the sale. | Statute | |
| MN - Ordinances - 366.01.Chapter 366. Town Board; Board of Audit. Town Board. | M. S. A. § 366.01 | MN ST § 366.01 | This Minnesota statute provides that the supervisors of each town constituting a town board are empowered to license and regulate the presence or keeping of dogs or domestic animal pets when deemed to be in the public interest. | Statute | |
| IA - Assistance Animals - Assistance Animal/Guide Dog Laws | I. C. A. § 216C.1 - 12; 216.8B, 216.8C; 321.333 | IA ST § 216C.1 - 12; 216.8B; 216.8C; 321.333 | The following statutes comprise the state's relevant service and assistance animal laws. | Statute | |
| Bailey v. Veitch | 814 N.Y.S.2d 459 (N.Y.A.D. 4 Dept.,2006) | 2006 N.Y. Slip Op. 03192 |
In this New York memorandum opinion, the Supreme Court, Appellate Division, held that fact issues remained as to whether injuries sustained by child were caused by dog, and whether defendants knew or should have known of dog's vicious propensities. At the time of the alleged bite, the four-year-old child was alone in a room with the dog and sustained a gaping laceration on her nose and multiple puncture wounds on her face. The court also determined there was an issue of fact as to whether the dog previously displayed vicious tendencies where the dog bit its owner's grandson on the hand two weeks prior to the instant incident. |
Case | |
| Big Cats of Serenity Springs, Inc. v. Rhodes | 842 F.3d 1280 (D.C. Cir. 2016) | 2016 WL 7187301 |
Plaintiff, Big Cats of Serenity Springs is a Colorado-based non-profit that provides housing, food, and veterinary care for exotic animals. The facility is regulated by the Defendant, United States Department of Agriculture's Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS). Three APHIS inspectors accompanied by sheriff's deputies broke into the Big Cats facility to perform an unannounced inspection of two tiger cubs. But at the time the inspectors entered the facility, the cubs were at a veterinarian's office receiving treatment. Big Cats sued the APHIS inspectors for the unauthorized entry and asserted that the entry was an illegal search under the Fourth Amendment and sought declaratory judgment and compensatory and punitive damages. The United States District Court for the District of Colorado, granted APHIS's motion to dismiss in part and denied in part. APHIS appealed. The Court of Appeals, held that: (1) Big Cats could assert a Bivens claim; (2) Big Cats adequately alleged that the inspectors violated their Fourth Amendment right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures; and (3) Big Cats had clearly-established the constitutional right to be free of unreasonable searches or seizures, thus weighing against the inspectors' claim of qualified immunity; but (4) the inspectors did not act under the color of state law, as required for § 1983 liability. The Court of Appeals reasoned that Big Cats' complaint stated a claim for relief under Bivens because No APHIS inspector would reasonably have believed unauthorized forcible entry of the Big Cats facility was permissible. Also, the Court reasoned that when the agents cut the locks to conduct a non-emergency inspection without a warrant, the federal officials did not act under color of state law, and the district court erred in denying the government's motion to dismiss the § 1983 claim. Therefore, the Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's order denying the government's motion to dismiss the Bivens claim and reversed the trial court's order denying the government's motion to dismiss the § 1983 claim. |
Case | |
| US - AWA Regulations - Table of Contents | AWA Table of Contents | This file provides the heading to all of the USDA regulations under the Animal Welfare Act with links to the appropriate files. | Administrative | ||
| Fair Housing of the Dakotas, Inc. v. Goldmark Property Management, Inc. | 78 F.Supp.2d 1028 (D.N.D. 2011) | 42 NDLR P 280, 66 A.L.R. Fed. 2d 687 | Plaintiffs bring this action against Goldmark Property Management alleging discrimination on the basis of disability in violation of the Fair Housing Act. The alleged discriminatory policy is a mandatory application fee, non-refundable deposit, and monthly charge that Goldmark imposes on tenants with disabilities who reside with a non-specially trained assistance animal (i.e. a companion pet). These same fees are waived for tenants with disabilities who reside with a trained assistance animal (i.e. a seeing eye dog). The FHA encompasses all types of assistance animals regardless of training; therefore, Goldmark's policy implicates the FHA. Further, Plaintiffs have met their burden of establishing a prima face case of discrimination and have presented sufficient evidence to create genuine issues for trial on the questions of the necessity and reasonableness of the requested accommodation and whether Goldmark's alleged objective for the policy is permissible under the FHA and not pretextual. Therefore, Goldmark's motion for summary judgment is granted in part and denied in part. It is granted as to Plaintiffs' claim of disparate treatment because no proof was offered of a discriminatory intent. It is denied as to Plaintiffs' claims of disparate impact and failure to make a reasonable accommodation. | Case | |
| WA - Importation - Chapter 16-54. Animal Importation | Wash. Admin. Code 16-54-010 - 180 | WAC 16-54-010 to 180 | This set of regulations is the Washington Department of Agriculture's import requirements for various types of domestic, companion, wild, and exotic animals. | Administrative | |
| Elliot v. Hurst | 817 S.W.2d 877 (Ark., 1991) | 307 Ark. 134 (1991) |
This tort case involves appellee's suit against appellant for appellant's conversion of appellee's wolf hybrid dog named Rambo. The appellee in this case had placed an ad stating that he had a certain breed of dogs for sale. When appellant went to see the dogs, she noticed a serious leg infection. After consulting with the local prosecutor’s office and an animal organization, she returned to the owner’s home to take the dog in for treatment. The consulting veterinarian determined that the leg had to be amputated. The court held that the recovery was limited to the market value at the time prior to the amputation. |
Case |