Results
Displaying 6551 - 6560 of 6638
| Title | Citation | Alternate Citation | Agency Citation | Summary | Type |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| MA - Cruelty, reporting - § 85. Department employees reporting animal cruelty, abuse or neglect; immunity from liability | M.G.L.A. 119 § 85 | Mass. Gen. Laws Ann. ch. 119, § 85 (West) | This Massachusetts statute provides that a state employee acting within the scope of his or her employment, who has knowledge of or observes an animal whom he knows or reasonably suspects has been the victim of animal cruelty, abuse or neglect may report it to the entities that investigate these reports or any local animal control. The statute describes how to make the report, timing to submit, and who can make the report if 2 or more employees witness the abuse. The statute also makes clear that no person who makes a report shall be liable in any civil or criminal action if the report was made in good faith. | Statute | |
| 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 | ||
| MN - Ordinances - Chapter 365. Town General Law. Town Meeting Powers. | M. S. A. § 365.10 | MN ST § 365.10 | Under this Minnesota statute, town electors at their annual town meeting, are empowered to exercise control over a number of activities relating to dogs. They can decide the locations of pounds, set the number of poundmasters, and discontinue a pound. The electors may make orders and bylaws on restraining horses, cattle, sheep, swine, and other domestic animals from going at large on roads. They may also make orders and bylaws on the impounding of domestic animals going at large and fix penalties for violations of the orders and bylaws. The electors may let the town board pass an ordinance for licensing dogs and cats and regulating their presence, keeping, and running at large in the town. The electors are also granted the authority to provide for a specific activity that is within any of the following categories: the promotion of health, safety, order, and convenience, and the general welfare. | Statute | |
| US - Marine Mammals - Public Display of Marine Mammals | 1994 WL 540866 (F.R.) | FR Doc. 94-24787 (1994) |
NMFS is announcing that the American Zoo and Aquarium Association (AZA) and the Alliance of Marine Mammal Parks and Aquariums Alliance) have submitted, for reference purposes, the professionally accepted standards on which their members base their education and conservation programs. The MMPA was amended substantially on April 30, 1994. These 1994 Amendments require that persons holding marine mammals for purposes of public display, or requesting issuance of a permit to capture or import a marine mammal for purposes of public display, must offer a program for education or conservation purposes that is based on professionally recognized standards of the public display community. |
Administrative | |
| IA - Trusts for Pets - Chapter 633A. Iowa Trust Code. | I. C. A. § 633A.2101 - 2105 | IA ST § 633A.2101 - 2105 | This Iowa statute allows for the creation of a trust for the continuing care of animal living at the settlor's death (note that actual text does not state "domestic" or "pet" animal). This type of trust, allowed generally through the provisions for lawful noncharitable trusts, is valid for up to twenty-one years, whether or not the terms of the trust contemplates a longer duration. The trust terminates when when no living animal is covered by its terms. | Statute | |
| Nason v. Stone Hill Realty Association | 1996 WL 1186942 (Mass. 1996) | A tenant with multiple sclerosis took in her mother's cat when her mother became ill. The housing authority had a no pets policy and requested that the tenant remove the pet from the premises. The tenant in turn offered a letter from her physician stating that "there would be serious negative consequences for her health if she was compelled to remove the cat." The court held that the tenant did not meet her burden of proving a nexus between the cat and her multiple sclerosis, reasoning that the physician's note does not state that the cat is necessary to alleviate her symptoms and that a more reasonable accommodation may be available. | Case | ||
| In re: JAMES J. EVERHART | 56 Agric. Dec. 1400 (1997) | 1997 WL 655550 (U.S.D.A.) | Respondent's inability to pay civil penalty is not consideration in determining civil penalties assessed under Animal Welfare Act. | Case | |
| LA - Captive Wildlife - §115. Possession of Potentially Dangerous Wild Quadrupeds and Non-Human Primates | 76 LA ADC Pt V, § 115 | La. Admin Code. tit. 76, pt. V, § 115 | This Louisiana regulation states that the possession of certain potentially dangerous quadrupeds, big exotic cats, and non-human primates poses significant hazards to public safety and health, is detrimental to the welfare of the animals, and may have negative impacts on conservation and recovery of some threatened and endangered species. As a result, except as provided, it is unlawful to import into, possess, purchase or sell within the state of Louisiana, by any means whatsoever including but not limited to transactions conducted via the internet, any of the following species: cougar or mountain lion (Felis concolor); black bear (Ursus americanus); grizzly bear (Ursus arctos); polar bear (Ursus maritimus); red wolf (Canis rufus); gray wolf (Canis lupus); wolf dog hybrid (Canis lupus or Canis rufus x Canis familiarus); all non-human primates. While the prohibition against wolf-dog hybrids expired January 1, 1997, the regulation cautions persons that local ordinances or other state regulations may prohibit possession of these animals. | Administrative | |
| 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 |