Results
| Title | Citation | Alternate Citation | Agency Citation | Summary | Type |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Soldal v. County of Cook | 506 US 56 (1992) |
Fourth Amendment protections apply regardless of the specific reasons for why a seizure may have occurred. |
Case | ||
| Matter of Ware | --- P.3d ----, 2018 WL 3120370 (Wash. Ct. App. June 26, 2018) | No. 50285-2-II | After the Lewis County Prosecuting Attorney's Office's decided not to issue charges in an animal abuse case, two private citizens sought to independently initiate criminal charges. One person filed a petition for a citizen's complaint in district court and, after that was denied, another person filed a petition to summon a grand jury. On appeal, those appellants argue that the lower court erred in not granting their petitions. The animal cruelty claim stems from an incident in 2016, where a woman filed a report with police stating that a neighbor had killed her mother's cat by throwing a rock at the cat and stabbing it with a knife. Witnesses gave similar account of the abuse of the cat by the neighbor. The responding police officer then determined that there was probable cause to arrest the suspect for first degree animal cruelty. The officer found the cat's body and photographed the injuries, although the officer could not determine whether the cat had been stabbed. Subsequently, the prosecuting attorney's office declined to file charges because the actions related to the animal's death were unclear. Additionally, the cat's body was not collected at the scene to sustain a charge. | Case | |
| AK - Exotic Pets - 5 AAC 92.030. Possession of wolf and wild cat hybrids prohibited. | 5 AK ADC 92.030 | 5 AAC 92.030 | This Alaska regulation makes it unlawful to possess, sell, purchase, or transfer a wolf or wild cat hybrid without a permit. It is an affirmative defense to prosecution that the person possessed the animal as a pet before July 23, 2002 in the case of a wolf-dog hybrid and followed other listed actions. A wild cat hybrid is defined as the mating of a domestic cat with a wild cat or hybrid that is of four generations or less wild cat. It is an affirmative defense to illegal possession of a wild cat hybrid when the owner shows proof of the pedigree showing the previous four generations or the animal is at least four generations removed from a wild ancestor. | Administrative | |
| UT - Assistance animal - Assistance Animal/Guide Dog Laws | U.C.A. 1953 § 26B-6-801 - 805; § 41-6a-1007; § 18-1-3; § 76-9-307; § 78B-3-701 - 703; § 10-8-65; § 17-50-336; § 53G-9-211 | UT ST § 26B-6-801 - 805; § 41-6a-1007; § 18-1-3; § 76-9-307; § 78B-3-701 - 703; § 10-8-65; § 17-50-336; § 53G-9-211 | The following statutes comprise the state's relevant assistance animal and guide dog laws. | Statute | |
| NY - Enforcement - Agriculture and Markets Law - Article 3. Investigation; Practice and Procedure; Violations; Penalties. | McKinney's Agriculture and Markets Law § 32 - 45-c | NY AGRI & MKTS § 32 - 45-c | This article outlines the procedures and penalties for violations of New York's Agriculture and Markets Law. | Statute | |
| DE - Sharks - § 928A. Trade in shark fins; penalty | 7 Del.C. § 928A | DE ST TI 7 § 928A | This Delaware statute prohibits people from possessing, selling, trading, or distributing a shark fin unless a person possesses a license to do so from the State. The statute also lists the penalty for violations. | Statute | |
| State v. Vander Houwen | 177 P.3d 93 (Wash., 2008) | 2008 WL 383769 (Wash.), 163 Wash.2d 25 |
The owner of severely damaged orchards was convicted for shooting some of the responsible animals after repeated requests for state remedies were unsuccessful. The damage to defendant's orchard (with estimated losses of over $200,000 for future cherry production) occurred in 1998 and 1999, when herds of elk repeatedly came through inadequate fencing constructed by the State. The Supreme Court held that when a property owner charged with unlawful hunting or waste of wildlife presents sufficient evidence that he exercised his constitutional right to protect his property from destructive game, the burden shifts to the State to disprove this justification. In this case, the defendant was denied jury instructions regarding his constitutional right to reasonably protect his property. |
Case | |
| Prays v. Perryman | 262 Cal.Rptr. 180 (Cal.App.2.Dist.) | 213 Cal.App.3d 1133 (Cal.App.2.Dist.) |
In an action by a commercial pet groomer against a dog owner for injuries suffered by a dog bite, the trial court found as a matter of law that plaintiff had assumed the risk of a dog bite, and on that basis granted summary judgment in defendant's favor. At the time plaintiff was bitten, she had not yet begun to groom the dog and, in fact, had expressed to defendant her concern whether it was safe for her to do so since the dog was excited and growling. The Court of Appeal reversed. Assuming the veterinarian's rule extended to pet groomers, making the defense of assumption of risk available, it held that plaintiff had not as a matter of law assumed the risk of being bitten since, at the time of the bite, the dog was still under the exclusive control of defendant, who had uncaged it and was holding it on a leash. |
Case | |
| England - Dogs - The Microchipping of Dogs (England) Regulations 2015 | 2015 No. 108 | Regulations making it compulsory for dog owners to ensure their dog is microchipped, and that their contact details are kept up to date on a database. | Statute | ||
| RI - Trusts - § 4-23-1. Trust for care of animals | Gen. Laws, 1956, § 4-23-1 | RI ST § 4-23-1 | This law represents the state's pet trust law. The law provides that a trust may be created to provide for the care of an animal alive during the settlor's lifetime. The trust terminates upon the death of the animal, or if the trust was created to provided for the care of more than one animal alive during the settlor's lifetime upon the death of the last surviving animal. The statute lists a distribution schedule for any remaining trust property and also states that such trusts are to be liberally construed to carry out the transferor's intent. | Statute |