Results
Displaying 61 - 70 of 6822
| Title | Citation | Alternate Citation | Agency Citation | Summary | Type |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Powell v. Johnson | 855 F. Supp. 2d 871, 877 (D. Minn. 2012) | Blu, a pit bull was shot in the head and killed after Officer Johnson entered the pit bull’s yard. The Plaintiffs, who were owners of Blu, filed a complaint asserting a: violation of the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments by shooting and killing Blu (Count I); violation of Plaintiffs' constitutional rights due to the City's failure to adequately hire, train, and supervise Johnson (Count II); intentional infliction of emotional distress (Count III); negligent hiring, supervision, and retention of Johnson (Count IV); vicarious liability (Count V); and trespass and conversion (Count VI). The Defendants, Officer Johnson and the City of Minneapolis, filed a Motion for Summary Judgment. The court held that the Motion would be granted in part. The court reasoned that Blu was property, rather than a person, for Fourth Amendment purposes and the officer's shooting and killing of Blu constituted a “seizure.” However, the court concluded that Officer Johnson was entitled to qualified immunity on Plaintiffs' Fourth Amendment claim. The court reasoned that it was not unreasonable for the Officer to perceive a threat to his safety when the large pit bull jogged up behind him. The court also held that The Motion for summary judgment was granted as to the remaining claims because the evidence in the record, failed to establish a constitutional violation by Defendants. | Case | ||
| CA - Entertainment - Title 4. Motion Pictures (use of animals) | West's Ann. Cal. Civ. Code § 3504 - 3508.2 | CA CIVIL § 3504 - 3508.2 | This section of laws provides that it is a nuisance to exhibit a motion picture that depicts any intentional killing of, or cruelty to, a human being or an animal where such intentional killing of, or cruelty to, a human being or an animal actually occurred in the production of the motion picture for the purpose of such production created after January 1, 1979. An action may be brought to abate and prevent the nuisance by the relevant county's district attorney or the California Attorney General. Any violation or disobedience of an injunction or order expressly provided for by this title is punishable as a contempt of court by a fine of not less than two hundred dollars ($200) nor more than one thousand dollars ($1,000). | Statute | |
| EU - Transport - 2004/544/EC: Council Decision on the signing of the European Convention for the protection of animals during in | 2004/544/EC |
This Council Decision directs the signing the of the European Convention for the protection of animals during international transport. |
Statute | ||
| Guides for creating slideshows |
To find the link to any slideshow click on Structure, then Views, scrolling down to the slideshow you're looking for, and you'll see a link like /caucaseco-case. |
Policy | |||
| VA - Vehicle - § 3.2-6504.1. Civil immunity; forcible entry of motor vehicle to remove unattended companion animal. | Va. Code Ann. § 3.2-6504.1 | VA ST § 3.2-6504.1 | This Virginia law was signed by the Governor on April 1, 2016. The law provides that no law-enforcement officer, firefighter, emergency medical services personnel, or animal control officer who in good faith forcibly enters a motor vehicle in order to remove an unattended companion animal that is at risk of serious bodily injury or death shall be liable for any property damage to the vehicle entered or injury to the animal resulting from such forcible entry and removal of the animal, unless such property damage or injury results from gross negligence or willful or wanton misconduct. | Statute | |
| Phillips v. Department Appellant Reply Brief | In their reply brief, Appellants argue respondents' reliance on Simpson v. City of Los Angeles is misplaced. They also argued due process protection applies to all property and that respondents' claims are unsubstantiated. | Pleading | |||
| US - Marine Mammals- Marine Mammal Protection Act | 16 USC 1361 - 1421h | The Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA) is the main regulatory vehicle that protects marine mammal species and their habitats in an effort to main sustainable populations. In doing so, the statute outlines prohibitions, required permits, criminal and civil penalties, and international aspects in addressing marine mammals. Included in the MMPA are provisions to protect dolphins from ocean vessels that harvest tuna with purse seine nets; provisions to protect polar bear; provisions that establish the Marine Mammal Commission and that agency's duties; and provisions for the Marine Mammal Health and Stranding Response Program, including funding for standing response and unusual mortality events. The Act's 1972 Legislative History is also included. | Statute | ||
| AZ - Assistance Animal - Arizona's Assistance Animal/Guide Dog Laws | A. R. S. § 11-1008; § 11-1024, § 13-2910; § 9-500.32 | AZ ST § 11-1008; § 11-1024, § 13-2910, § 9-500.32 | The following statutes comprise the state's relevant assistance animal and service animal laws. | Statute | |
| Massachusetts General Law Statutes 1921: Sections 77-96 | Mass. Gen. L., 77-96 (1921) | The 1921 of Massachusetts General Laws sections 77-96 cover the following topics: animal cruelty, treatment of horses, bird fighting, shooting of pigeons, procedural issues concerning an arrest for cruelty to animals, and transportation of animals. | Statute | ||
| US - Endangered Species - Subpart B. § 17.11 Endangered and threatened wildlife | 50 C.F.R. § 17.11 | The list in this section contains the names of all species of wildlife which have been determined by the Services to be Endangered or Threatened. It also contains the names of species of wildlife treated as Endangered or Threatened because they are sufficiently similar in appearance to Endangered or Threatened species. | Administrative |