Results
| Title | Citation | Alternate Citation | Agency Citation | Summary | Type |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Canada - B.C. - B.C. Statutes - Vancouver Charter. Part XIV -- Nuisances | S.B.C. 1953, c. 55, s. 323 - 324(A)3 | These British Columbia, Canada laws provide the laws for preventing, abating, and prohibiting nuisances, which include dangerous dogs. The laws describe what constitutes a dangerous dog and what actions may be taken with a dangerous dog. The set also contains provisions that allow for the creation of by-laws to control and impound animals. | Statute | ||
| NH - Portsmouth - Chapter 4: Food Licensing and Regulations | City of Portsmouth, New Hampshire, Code of Ordinances §§ 4.101 - 4.507 |
These Portsmouth, New Hampshire ordinances provide licensing, inspection, and penalty provisions for milk, slaughterhouses, butchers and restaurants. |
Local Ordinance | ||
| Reams v. Irvin | Not Reported in F.Supp.2d, 2008 WL 906005 (N.D.Ga.) | 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 25350 |
The plaintiff brought a 42 U.S.C 1983 action against police officers she claimed violated her civil rights under the Due Process Clause, the Equal Protection Clause, and the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution when they impounded 46 of her horses on suspicion of animal abuse. Upon a summary judgement motion by the defendants, the court dismissed all of the plaintiff's claims. Responding to the Fourth Amendment claim in particular, the court held that an old dairy barn, which was being used to hide dead horses, was neither within the curtilage of the home nor protected by the Fourth Amendment. After applying the Dunn factors, the court determined that the barns distance of 150 yards from the dwelling on the farm, its use for the commercial production of dairy products, its lacks of enclosure, and its missing doors all militated against it being part of the curtilage of the home and it did not enjoy Fourth Amendment privacy protection. |
Case | |
| Andrus v. Allard | 444 U.S. 51 (1979) |
The Court holds that the narrow exception in the BGEPA for "possession and transportation" of pre-existing eagles and eagle artifacts does not extend to sale of the those lawfully obtained artifacts. The legislative history and plain language of the statute is clear on Congress' intent to prohibit any commerce in eagles. This prohibition on commerce in eagle artifacts does not constitute an unconstitutional taking because the ability to sell the property is but one strand in the owner's bundle of property rights. The denial of one property right does not automatically equate a taking. For further discussion on the prohibition in commerce of pre-existing eagle artifacts, see Detailed Discussion of Eagle Act. |
Case | ||
| UT - Initiatives - Utah Supermajority for Hunting Initiatives, Proposition 5 (1998) | Utah Supermajority for Hunting Initiatives, Proposition 5 (1998) (passed) | Proposition 5 amends present provisions of the Utah Constitution regarding the power of the people of the state to initiate legislation and submit it to a vote of the people for approval or rejection by majority vote. This proposition requires a two-thirds vote in order to adopt by initiative a state law allowing, limiting, or prohibiting the taking of wildlife or the season for or method of taking wildlife. The measures passed with 56.1% of the vote. | Statute | ||
| Revista Brasileira de Direito Animal Volume 13 |
SUMÁRIOEDITORIAL Heron José de Santana Gordilho DOUTRINA INTERNACIONAL/INTERNATIONAL ARTICLES1. PORQUE É CRIME ESMAGAR UM PEIXINHO DOURADO?: DANO, VÍTIMA E A ESTRUTURA DOS CRIMES ANTI-CRUELDADE |
Policy | |||
| City of Water Valley v. Trusty | 343 So.2d 471 (Miss. 1977) | Appellants filed b ill of complaint seeking to enjoin enforcement of city's dog leash ordinance. The court summarily held that Mississippi Code Annotated s 21-19-9 (1972) authorizes municipalities to regulate the running at large of animals of all kinds. The ordinance here was enacted pursuant to that authority, it meets the constitutional requirements, and the demurrer should have been sustained on that question. | Case | ||
| Animal Rights Front, Inc. v. Planning & Zoning Com'n of Town of Glastonbury | 2002 WL 31761999 (Conn.Super.) |
The plaintiff, Animal Rights Front, Inc., an environmental intervenor, appeals from a final decision of the defendant that gave subdivision and special permit approval to an application by defendant Rejean Jacques d/b/a Rejean Realty, Inc. The basic issue of the plaintiff's appeal relates to preservation of the Eastern Timber Rattlesnake, an endangered species common to the Diamond Lake section of Glastonbury, and its migration across the development project, which would inherently lead to mortality. On appeal, defendants questioned plaintiff's standing because they contended that rattlesnakes do not fall under the category of "natural resources." Relying on a companion case, the court noted that endangered species are inherently deemed natural resources. However in dismissing plaintiff's appeal, the court found that the defendant made changes that provided for the protection of the rattlesnake and the commission reasonably relied upon these assertions by the defendant to support its conclusions so it was not required to consider alternatives to the proposed development. |
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 |