Results
| Title | Citation | Alternate Citation | Summary | Type |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Dubner v.City and County of San Francisco | 266 F.3d 959 |
Photographer brought § 1983 claim and several state law claims against city, police officers, and chief of police alleging unlawful arrest. The Court of Appeals, D.W. Nelson, Circuit Judge, held that: (1) photographer established prima facie case of her unlawful arrest by police officers at animal rights demonstration; (2) police lacked probable to cause to arrest photographer for trespassing under California law; (3) police lacked probable cause to arrest photographer under California's unlawful assembly statute; and (4) police chief could be held liable in his individual capacity. |
Case | |
| Maps of U.S. Laws | The following links provide access to maps on various animal law-related topics. | Basic page | ||
| MI - Habitat Protection - Wilderness, Wild, and Natural Areas (Natural Resources and Environmental Protection Act) | M.C.L.A. 324.35101 - 35111 | MI ST 324.35101 - 35111 | These sections define, identify, and set guidelines for the protection of wilderness, wild, and/or natural areas. | Statute |
| CHAPMAN v. DECROW | 93 Me. 378, 45 A. 295 (1899) | 74 Am.St.Rep. 357 (1899) |
In this Maine case, the defendant was found liable for trespass after he killed the plaintiff's dog. Defendant asserted that the dog was trespassing on his premises, and was “then, or had been immediately before the shooting, engaged, with two other dogs, in chasing and worrying his domesticated animals, to wit, tame rabbits." As a result, he claimed that the killing was justified. This court first disagreed with defendant's claim that an unlicensed dog is not property because it constitutes a nuisance. This court found that, by the common law, a dog is property, for an injury to which an action will lie. Moreover, the statute to which defendant claims authority to kill an unlicensed dog only allows a constable to do so after a proscribed lapse. |
Case |
| TN - Dyer - Breed - Ordinance 2007-157 (An Ordinance To Regulate The Keeping of Pit Bulls and Other Vicious Dogs) | DYER, TN., MUNICIPAL CODE § 2007-157 (2007) |
In Dyer, Tennessee, it is unlawful to keep, harbor, own, or possess a pit bull dog, with exceptions for dogs registered as of the date this ordinance was adopted. The owners of such dogs must comply with certain requirements, such as physical restraint or proper confinement of the dog, use of a muzzle on the dog, the posting of a “Beware of Dog” sign, the keeping of $100,000) liability insurance, and the taking of photographs for identification purposes. Dogs not kept according to the requirements may be impounded. |
Local Ordinance | |
| CA - Damages - Injuries to animals; exemplary damages | West's Ann. Cal. Civ. Code § 3340 | CA CIVIL § 3340 | Exemplary damages may be given for injuries to animals committed in disregard of humanity either willfully or through gross negligence. | Statute |
| NE - Domestic Violence - 42-924. Protection order; when authorized; | Neb. Rev. St. § 42-903, 924 | NE ST § 42-903, 924 | In 2023, Nebraska amended the Protection from Domestic Abuse Act to include household pets in protection orders. "Household pet" means any animal maintained for companionship or pleasure but does not include any animal kept primarily for commercial purposes or for consumption or any livestock animal as defined in section 54-902. Any victim of domestic abuse may file a petition and affidavit for a protection order as provided in this section. The court may issue a protection order granting relief that includes giving the petitioner sole possession of any household pet owned, possessed, leased, kept, or held by the petitioner, the respondent, or any family or household member residing in the household of the petitioner or respondent. The court may also enjoin the respondent from coming into contact with, harming, or killing any household pet owned, possessed, leased, kept, or held by the petitioner, the respondent, or any family or household member of the petitioner or respondent. | Statute |
| Colombia - Dangerous dogs - DECRETO 380 DE 2022 | DECRETO 380 DE 2022 | This decree adds Chapter 10 to Title 8 of Decree 1070, 2015 (Regulatory Decree of the Defense Administrative Sector). It regulates the civil liability of owners or keepers of "special management dogs." Owners and keepers must acquire liability insurance and dogs in this category must be microchipped. | Statute |