Results
| Title | Citation | Alternate Citation | Agency Citation | Summary | Type |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| TX - Police - Nonlethal responses to dog encounters | V.T.C.A., Occupations Code §§ 1701.253; 1701.261; 1701.402 | TX OCC §§ 1701.253; 1701.261; 1701.402 | These statutes require training for Texas law enforcement in nonlethal responses to encounters with dogs. As part of the minimum curriculum requirements, the commission shall require an officer licensed by the commission on or after January 1, 2016, to complete a canine encounter training program established by the commission under Section 1701.261.That section states that the commission shall establish a statewide comprehensive education and training program on canine encounters and canine behavior. The training program must consist of at least four hours of classroom instruction and practical training, developed and approved by the commission, that addresses the handling canine-related calls, anticipating unplanned encounters with canines, and using humane methods and tools in handling canine encounters. | Statute | |
| IA - Cruelty - Chapter 717. Injury to Livestock | I. C. A. § 717.1 - .7 | IA ST § 717.1 - 717.7 | Livestock were excluded from the definition of animal in Iowa's animal cruelty laws in 1994. These sections deal exclusively with livestock and exempt practices consistent with customary farming practices. | Statute | |
| CA - Horse docking - § 597q. Docked horses; unregistered; prima facie evidence | West's Ann. Cal. Penal Code § 597q | CA PENAL § 597q | This statute provides that driving, working, keeping, racing or using any unregistered docked horse 60 days after the passage of this act is prima facie evidence of the fact that the party engaged in such activity docked the tail of such horse. | Statute | |
| Ley de Protección Animal del Estado de Querétaro | Ley de Protección Animal del Estado de Querétaro | This law seeks to guarantee dignified and respectful treatment for all animal species. As stated in Article 1, its primary objectives include: 1) the regulation of the possession, procreation, development, use, transportation, and slaughter of species, populations, and animal specimens in the state; 2) to implement compliance with the state's environmental policy regarding wildlife and biotic resources; and 3) to promote a culture of protection and respect for nature. | Statute | ||
| Tracey v. Solesky | Not Reported in A.3d, 2012 WL 1432263 (Md.,2012) |
In this Maryland case, the Court of Appeals establishes a new standard of liability for a landlord who has knowledge of the presence of a pit bull or cross-bred pit bull dog and also modifies the common law liability as it relates to the pit bull breed of dogs. In doing so, the Court now holds that because of the "aggressive and vicious nature and its capability to inflect serious and sometimes fatal injuries," pit bull dogs and cross-bred pit bulls are now categorized as "inherently dangerous." Upon a plaintiff's sufficient proof that an attacking dog is a pit bull or pit bull mix, a person who knows that the dog is of the pit bull breed, including a landlord, is strictly liable for damages caused to the plaintiff who was attacked. The case was remanded to trial court with this modification to common law. This opinion was Superseded by Tracey v. Solesky , 427 Md. 627 (Md., 2012). |
Case | ||
| U.S. ex rel. Haight v. Catholic Healthcare West | 602 F.3d 949 (9th Cir., 2010) | 10 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 4932 |
The plaintiffs, In Defense of Animals and Patricia Haight brought suit against the defendants under the False Claims Act. In 1997, defendant Michael Berens, Ph.D., submitted a grant application to the NIH in which he sought federal funding for a project to develop a canine model to study glioma, a form of human brain cancer, and attempted to create a process for implanting gliomas in the brains of beagles. The district court granted summary judgment to the defendants, holding that the plaintiffs failed to produce sufficient evidence from which a reasonable jury could find that the challenged grant application statements were objectively false. |
Case | |
| Ocean Mammal Inst. v. Gates | Slip Copy, 2008 WL 2185180 (D.Hawai'i) |
Plaintiffs sued the Navy over the use of sonar; the Plaintiffs feared that the sonar would kill whales and other marine life. This case dealt with the required production of documents the Defendant claimed were privileged and or work product material. The Court found that the Defendant must hand over the material to the Plaintiffs because the documents were not in fact privileged. |
Case | ||
| Mayfield v. Bethards | 826 F.3d 1252 (10th Cir. 2016) | 2016 WL 3397503 (10th Cir. June 20, 2016) | In this case, plaintiffs sued defendant, Officer Bethards, for unlawfully killing their pet dog Majka. Plaintiffs' dogs were lying in plaintiffs' unfenced front yard when the officers entered the yard and then followed the dogs to the back of the house, eventually killing one of the dogs. The plaintiffs argued that by unlawfully killing their dog, Officer Bethards violated their constitutional rights under the Fourth Amendment by entering the property without a warrant with the intention of killing the dogs. Officer Bethards moved to have the complaint dismissed for a failure to state a claim and the court denied this motion. Specifically, Officer Bethards argued that this was not a violation of the Fourth Amendment because the Fourth Amendment only applies to “effects,” which does not include dogs. The court disagreed, finding that Fourth Amendment protection for pet dogs is a clearly established right. Ultimately, the court held that the plaintiffs asserted facts sufficient to show a violation of their clearly established Fourth Amendment rights and the district court's order denying Deputy Bethards's motion to dismiss was affirmed. | Case | |
| US - AWA - 2002 Public Law 107-171 | 2002 PL 107-171 | 116 Stat. 491 | Enacted January 23, 2002, the Farm Security and Rural Investment Act changed the definition of "animal" in the Animal Welfare Act to specifically exclude birds, rats of the genus Rattus, and mice of the genus Mus, bred for use in research. The law also addressed animal fighting ventures by making it a misdemeanor to ship a bird in interstate commerce for fighting purposes, or to sponsor to exhibit a bird in a fight that had been shipped for such purposes. | Statute | |
| PA - Permits - Subchapter M. Exotic Wildlife Dealer | 58 PA ADC §147 .241 - 246 | 58 Pa. Code § 147.241 - 246 | These Pennsylvania regulations relate to the housing and care of exotic wildlife and public protection from wildlife that is being held or transported by exotic wildlife dealers. Under the regulations, it is unlawful to keep exotic wildlife in confinement in an unsanitary or unsafe condition, or in a manner which results in maltreatment, mistreatment or neglect. The regulations outline requirements for housing, cage construction, food and water provision, waste removal. and drainage. | Administrative |