Results
| Title | Citation | Alternate Citation | Agency Citation | Summary | Type |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| University Towers Associates v. Gibson | 846 N.Y.S.2d 872 (N.Y.City Civ.Ct. 2007) | 18 Misc.3d 349, 2007 WL 4126442 (N.Y.City Civ.Ct.), 2007 N.Y. Slip Op. 27481 |
In this New York case, the petitioner, University Towers Associates commenced this holdover proceeding against the rent-stabilized tenant of record and various undertenants based on an alleged nuisance where the tenants allegedly harbored pit bulls. According to petitioner, the pit bull is an alleged “known dangerous animal” whose presence at the premises creates an threat. The Civil Court of the City of New York held that the landlord's notice of termination did not adequately apprise the tenant of basis for termination; further, the notice of termination and the petition in the holdover proceeding did not allege objectionable conduct over time by the tenant as was required to establish nuisance sufficient to warrant a termination of tenancy.
|
Case | |
| MO - Exotic - Chapter 578. Miscellaneous Offenses. Large Carnivores | V.A.M.S. 578.600 - 578.625 | MO ST 578.600 - 578.625 | The “Large Carnivore Act” pertains to large cats and bears that are nonnative to Missouri and held in captivity. The Act prohibits ownership, possession, breeding, and transportation of large carnivores (with exceptions). The Act creates civil and criminal liability for persons who own or possess a large carnivore. Violations may result in misdemeanor or felony convictions, community service work, the loss of privileges to own or possess any animal, and forfeiture of a large carnivore. | Statute | |
| In the MATTER OF the TITLE, BALLOT TITLE AND SUBMISSION CLAUSE FOR 2021-2022 #16 | 489 P.3d 1217 (Colo. 2021) | Opponents of an initiative in Colorado petitioned for a review of the Ballot Title Setting Board's decisions regarding the initiative's title, ballot title, and submission clause. The initiative proposed to amend the state's criminal animal cruelty statutes by ending certain exemptions for livestock, creating a safe harbor for their slaughter with certain conditions, and expanding the definition of "sexual act with an animal." The opponents alleged that the initiative violated the single subject requirement by covering multiple subjects. The Supreme Court reviewed the case and found that the central focus of the initiative was to extend animal cruelty statutes to cover livestock. The initiative's safe harbor provision for the slaughter of livestock did not violate the single subject rule. The initiative's expansion of the definition of "sexual act with an animal" violated the single subject rule. The Court reversed the lower court's decision. | Case | ||
| CT - Exotic - Sec. 26-55-6. Importation, possession or liberation of wild birds, mammals, reptiles, amphibians and invertebrates | CT ADC § 26-55-6 | Regs. Conn. State Agencies § 26-55-6 | This Connecticut regulation (effective March 1, 2012) places restrictions on who may import or possess certain categories of wild animals in the state. The regulation puts wild animals into one of four categories: Category One, Two, Three, or Four Wild Animals. With regard to Great Apes, a member within the family Hominidae (including, but not limited to, gorilla, chimpanzee and orangutan) is a Category One Animal. No person, except a municipal park, zoo, public nonprofit aquarium, nature center,museum, exhibitor licensed or registered with the United States Department of Agriculture, laboratory registered with the United States Department of Agriculture, or research facility registered with the United States Department of Agriculture, shall import or possess any Category One Wild Animal. | Administrative | |
| MA - Lost Property - Chapter 134. Lost Goods and Stray Beasts | M.G.L.A. 134 § 1 - 7 | MA ST 134 § 1 - 7 | This section comprises Massachusetts' Lost Goods and Stray Beasts Act. | Statute | |
| ID - Idaho Falls - Title 1: General Provisions & Title 5: Criminal Code (Chapter 9: Animals) | City Code of the City of Idaho Falls §§ 1-3-5, 5-1-3, 5-9-3 to 5-9-4 |
In Idaho Falls, Idaho, any person who causes an animal to fight for amusement, or for gain, or to worry or injure each other; and any person who permits the same to be done on any premises under his charge or control; and any person who aids, abets or is present as a spectator is guilty of a misdemeanor. Additionally, any person who owns, possesses, keeps or trains any bird or animal, with the intent that such bird or animal engage in an exhibition of fighting, or any person who is present at any place, building or tenement, where preparations are being made for an exhibition of fighting of birds or animals, with the intent to be present at such exhibition, is guilty of a misdemeanor. Any person violating these provisions may be punished by imprisonment for a term not exceeding six (6) months, or by a fine not exceeding one thousand dollars ($1,000), or by both. |
Local Ordinance | ||
| Colucci v. Colucci | 234 A.3d 1226 (Me. 2020) | 2020 ME 75 , 2020 WL 2764560 | This Maine case is an appeal of a divorce proceeding where one party argues the court erred in awarding the parties' dogs to another. In 2017, Suan Colucci filed a complaint for divorce against her husband, Stephen Colucci. In 2019, the court entered a judgment granting the divorce and awarded both dogs “set aside to [Susan] as her exclusive property.” On appeal by Stephen, this court found that undisputed evidence established that "Louise" the dog was acquired five years before marriage, and thus, was nonmarital property. Because no evidence was presented to which of the parties actually acquired Louise in 2010, the judgment was vacated and remanded for further proceedings to determine ownership of Louise. | Case | |
| CA - Dog Park - § 831.7.5. Liability of public entity owning or operating a dog park; actions of a dog in the dog park | West's Ann.Cal.Gov.Code § 831.7.5 | This law in the Government Code states that a public entity that owns or operates a dog park shall not be held liable for injury or death of a person or pet resulting solely from the actions of a dog in the dog park. | Statute | ||
| Toledo v. Tellings | 871 N.E.2d 1152 (Ohio, 2007) | 114 Ohio St.3d 278; 2007 -Ohio- 3724 |
In this Ohio case, the defendant, who owned three pit bull type dogs, was convicted in the Municipal Court, Lucas County, of violating the Toledo city ordinance that limited ownership to only one pit bull per household. On appeal by the City, the Supreme Court found the state and the city have a legitimate interest in protecting citizens against unsafe conditions caused by pit bulls. The evidence presented in the trial court supports the conclusion that pit bulls pose a serious danger to the safety of citizens. The statutes and the city ordinance are rationally related to serve the legitimate interests of protecting Ohio and Toledo citizens. |
Case | |
| Supreme Beef Processors, Inc. v. U.S. Dept. of Agriculture | 275 F.3d 432 (C.A.5 (Tex.),2001) | 51 Fed.R.Serv.3d 1445 (2001) |
The Fifth Circuit United States Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's decision that the Federal Meat Inspection Act focuses on the processes used by a manufacturer and not the product itself, and that the presence of Salmonella bacteria in the meat does not necessarily make a product "adulterated" because the act of the cooking meat normally destroys the bacteria. |
Case |