|Title||Citation||Alternate Citation||Agency Citation||Summary||Type|
|KS - Hesston - Breed - 2-125 PROHIBITION ON OWNERSHIP, KEEPING, OF CERTAIN DOG BREEDS.||HESSTON, KS., CITY CODE § 2-125, 2-126 (2007)||
In Hesston, Kansas, it is unlawful to keep, harbor, own, or possess a Staffordshire bull terrier, an American pit bull terrier, or a Rottweiler. Dogs that were registered with the city on the date of publication of this ordinance may be kept within the city limits subject to certain requirements, such as using a leash and muzzle outside, confining the dog in certain ways, posting “Beware of Dog” signs, maintaining liability insurance of $50,000, and taking identification photographs. A violation may result in a fine of up to $1,000 and/or imprisonment up to 30 days.
|SC - Restaurant, animal - 9-3 OUTDOOR PET DINING||SC ADC 61-25||S.C. CODE REGS. 61-25||This South Carolina regulation concerns outdoor dining with pets. The regulation first defines pets as domesticated cats, dogs, and ferrets. A retail food service establishment may allow customers to be accompanied by pets in an outdoor dining area provided the retail food service establishment complies with the requirements of this section and all other applicable sections of this regulation. Among other requirements include availability of cleaning supplies and sanitizers in the outdoor pet dining area, signage indicating that the area is "pet dining friendly," a separate outdoor entrance to the dining area, a requirement that owners keep pets restrained at all times, and a prohibition on pets on the table, countertop, or other food contact surface.||Administrative|
|Rabon v. City of Seattle (II)||34 P.3d 821 (Wash.App. Div. 1,2001)||107 Wash.App. 734 (2001)||
This Washington case constitutes plaintiff's second appeal in extended litigation aimed at preventing the City of Seattle from destroying his dogs after a jury convicted him of the criminal charge of owning vicious dogs. The case began when Rabon filed a civil suit seeking an injunction against having his dogs destroyed. This present appeal is from an order dismissing his constitutional claims against the City on summary judgment. In affirming the order of summary judgment, this court held that a person's interest in keeping a vicious dog as a pet is not so great as to require a more careful procedure than is provided by Seattle's administrative and hearing process. The fact that plaintiff did not have a right to an immediate pre-deprivation hearing before the dogs were seized and impounded is justified by the strong public interest in prompt action to prevent more attacks.
|Argentina, Ley 27233, 2015||Ley 27233||This law declared animal and plant health of national interest. Ley 27233 established that the all persons including legal persons that are participants in the agro-food chain (production, obtention, transportation and industrialization of products, by-products, and derivatives of silvo-agricultural and fishing origin), have the responsibility to watch and respond to the health, innocuousness, hygiene, and quality of agricultural production, in accordance with the current regulations. Article 2 declared of public order the national regulations by which the development of actions aim for the preservation of animal health, plant protection, and the hygienic-sanitary condition of food of agricultural origin. This responsibility extends to those who produce, divide, conserve, deposit, concentrate, transport, commercialize, sell, import or export animals, vegetables, food, raw materials, food additives, reproductive material, animal feed and raw materials, fishery products and other products of animal and/or vegetable origin that act individually, jointly or successively, in the agro-food chain.||Statute|
|Brandon v. Village of Maywood||157 F. Supp.2d 917 (N.D. Ill. 2001)||
Plaintiffs brought § 1983 action against village and police officers after botched drug bust in which bystander and dog were wounded. The court held that the police officers were entitled to qualified immunity in shooting of dog and the village did not have policies on police conduct that warranted liability. However, issues of fact precluded summary judgment on false imprisonment claim based on officers' assertion of immunity.
|TN - Licenses - § 68-8-107. Seizure; adoption; destruction.||T. C. A. § 68-8-107||TN ST § 68-8-107||This Tennessee statute mandates that any dog found running at large may be seized by any peace officer and placed in an animal shelter in counties or cities where an animal shelter or pound is available. If the dog or cat is wearing a rabies vaccination tag or other identification, all reasonable effort shall be made to locate and notify the owners who shall be required to appear within five (5) days and redeem the animal by paying a pound fee as set by the city or county legislative body.||Statute|
|NJ - Dog Bite - Chapter 19. Dogs, Taxation and Liability for Injuries Caused by||N. J. S. A. 4:19-16||NJ ST 4:19-16||This New Jersey statute provides that the owner of any dog that bites a person while such person is on or in a public place, or lawfully on or in a private place, including the property of the owner of the dog, shall be liable for such damages suffered by the person bitten, regardless of the former viciousness of such dog or the owner's knowledge of such viciousness.||Statute|
|Cetacean Cmty. v. President of the United States||249 F. Supp. 2d 1206 (D.C. Hawaii, 2003)||Plaintiff, a community of whales, dolphins, and porpoises, sued Defendants, the President of the United States and the United States Secretary of Defense, alleging violations of the (NEPA), the (APA), the (ESA), and the (MMPA). The Plaintffs were concerned with the United States Navy's development and use of a low frequency active sonar (LFAS) system. The community alleged a failure to comply with statutory requirements with respect to LFAS use during threat and warfare conditions.||Case|
|LA - Vehicle, animal - § 1738.1. Immunity from liability; gratuitous emergency care to domestic animal||LSA-R.S. 37:1738.1||LA R.S. 37:1738.1||This 2018 Louisiana law states that there shall be no liability on the part of a person for property damage or trespass to a motor vehicle, if the damage was caused while the person was rescuing an animal in distress. The person must first do the following: (1) make a good-faith attempt to locate the owner before forcibly entering the vehicle (based on the circumstances); (2) contact local law enforcement/911 before forcibly entering; (3) determine the vehicle is locked and has a good-faith belief there is no other reasonable means for the animal to be removed; (3) believe that removal of the animal is necessary because the animal is in imminent danger of death; (4) use no more force than necessary to rescue the animal; (5) place a notice on the windshield providing details including contact information and the location of the animal; and (6) remain with the animal in a safe location reasonably close to the vehicle until first responders arrive. For purposes of the law, "animal” means any cat or dog kept for pleasure, companionship, or other purposes that are not purely commercial.||Statute|
|Com. v. Hake||Com. v. Hake, 738 A.2d 46 (1998)||
Dog owner appealed conviction of harboring a dangerous dog that attacked a child in violation of the Dangerous Dog Statute. The Commonwealth Court held that the statute imposes strict liability for the dog’s first bite if a dog inflicts severe injury on a human being without provocation.