Results

Displaying 71 - 80 of 6636
Title Citation Alternate Citation Agency Citation Summary Type
WA - Enumclaw - Breed - Chapter 7.08
 PIT BULL DOGS ENUMCLAW, WA., MUNICIPAL CODE §§ 7.08.010 - 7.08.030 (1990)

In Enumclaw, Washington, it is unlawful to keep, harbor, own or possess a pit bull dog, with exceptions for dogs licensed before the effective date of the ordinance. Such dogs are subject to certain requirements, such as proper confinement, the use of a leash and muzzle, posting “Beware of Dog” signs, the use of special orange collars, photographs and tattoos for identification purposes, keeping $100,000 liability insurance, and vaccinating the dog against rabies. Failure to  comply may result in the humane destruction of the dog.

Local Ordinance
Thurston v. Carter 92 A. 295 (Maine, 1914) L.R.A. 1915C,359, 112 Me. 361, 92 A. 295, Am.Ann.Cas. 1917A,389 This action of trespass is brought for the recovery of damages for the killing of the fox hound of plaintiff by defendant.  Defendant claimed that he shot and killed the plaintiff's dog while it was chasing and worrying a cat belonging to and upon the land of the defendant. After the introduction of all the evidence, the court ordered a verdict for defendant. To this direction, plaintiff filed his bill of exceptions in which it is stipulated that if a cat is a domestic animal, the ruling below is to stand, otherwise judgment is to be entered for plaintiff in the sum of $50. Case
Brayshaw v Liosatos [2001] ACTSC 2

The appellant had informations laid against him alleging that he, as a person in charge of animals, neglected cattle 'without reasonable excuse' by failing to provide them with food. The appellant had been informed by a veterinarian that his treatment of the cattle was potentially a breach of the Animal Welfare Act 1992 (ACT) and that they were in poor condition. The evidence admitted did not rule out the possibility that the appellant's feeding of the cattle accorded with 'maintenance rations' and the convictions were overturned.

Case
Jones v. Butz 374 F.Supp. 1284 (D.C.N.Y. 1974)

This action involves a challenge, under the Free Exercise and Establishment Clauses of the First Amendment, to the Humane Slaughter Act and in particular to the provisions relating to ritual slaughter as defined in the Act and which plaintiffs suggest involve the Government in the dietary preferences of a particular religious (e.g., Orthodox Jews) group.  The court held that there is no violation of Establishment Clause because no excessive governmental entanglement and by making it possible for those who wish to eat ritually acceptable meat to slaughter the animal in accordance with the tenets of their faith, Congress neither established the tenets of that faith nor interfered with the exercise of any other.

Case
NV - Rabies - 441A.435. Owner required to maintain dog, cat or ferret currently vaccinated NV ADC 441A.435 Nev. Admin. Code 441A.435 This Nevada regulation states that an owner of a dog, cat or ferret shall maintain the dog, cat or ferret currently vaccinated against rabies in accordance with the provisions of this section and the recommendations set forth in the Compendium of Animal Rabies Prevention and Control, 2008 edition, published by the National Association of State Public Health Veterinarians, Inc. A licensed veterinarian may exempt a dog, cat or ferret from vaccination for health reasons. Administrative
VA - Restaurant - § 3.2-5115. Animals VA Code Ann. § 3.2-5115 VA ST § 3.2-5115 This Virginia law states that no animal shall be permitted in any area used for the manufacture or storage of food products. However, a dog may be allowed in designated areas of a distillery, winery, or brewery as defined in the law. Statute
GA - Breeding - Chapter 40-13-13. Animal Protection GA ADC 40-13-13-.01 to .09 Ga Comp. R. & Regs. 40-13-13-.01 to .09 There regulations set out the requirements for licensing animal shelters, pet dealers, kennels, and stable operators. They also provide provisions for controlling disease and shipping animals into the state. Administrative
WA - Dangerous Dog - 16.08.040. Dog bites. Liability and Dangerous dogs and related provisions. West's RCWA 16.08.010 - 110 WA ST 16.08.010 - 110 This Washington statute outlines the state's dangerous dog laws. Under the law, the owner or keeper of any dog shall be liable to the owner of any animal killed or injured by such dog for the amount of damages sustained in a civil action. Further, there is strict liability for the owner of any dog that bites any person while in a public place or lawfully on a private place including the property of the owner of such dog, regardless of the former viciousness of such dog or the owner's knowledge of such viciousness. However, proof of provocation of the attack by the injured person shall be a complete defense to an action for damages. Statute
Galgano v. Town of North Hempstead 41 A.D.3d 536 (N.Y.A.D. 2 Dept., 2007) 840 N.Y.S.2d 794, 2007 WL 1704612 (N.Y.A.D. 2 Dept.), 2007 N.Y. Slip Op. 05223

In this New York Case, the plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County which granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint for personal injuries and damages due to a dog bite. The court reaffirmed New York law that to recover in strict liability in tort for a dog bite or attack, the plaintiff must establish that the dog had vicious propensities and that the owner knew or should have known of the dog's propensities. The fact that the subject dog was brought to the animal shelter because another dog in the owner's household did not get along with it is not indicative that it had vicious propensities.

Case
U.S. v. Street 257 F.3d 869 (8th Cir.2001)

The court held that the "second or subsequent conviction" component of the BGEPA applies to separate convictions charged in a single indictment.  For further discussion on the enhanced penalty provision of the BGEPA, see Detailed Discussion of Eagle Act.

Case

Pages