Results
Displaying 61 - 70 of 6637
| Title | Citation | Alternate Citation | Agency Citation | Summary | Type |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| U.S. v. Gregory (Unpublished Opinion) | 933 F.2d 1016 (1991) |
Defendant challenged the search of his residence in a drug raid in which his dog was shot. The court held that the shooting of Gregory's dog was done excusably by an officer who reacted quickly in a potentially dangerous situation to a perceived attack by an animal reasonably believed to be an attack dog. The shooting of the dog did not render the search unreasonable. |
Case | ||
| OK - Restaurant, animals - 310:257-11-54. Prohibiting animals | OK ADC 310:257-11-54 | OAC 310:257-11-54 | This Oklahoma regulation relates to animals in food establishments. Subsection (d) states that dogs and cats may be allowed in outdoor dining areas, provided the dog or cat is controlled by the owner or handler of the animal and nine conditions are met. Among the conditions include a requirement for a separate entrance to the outdoor dining area, a prohibition on direct contact with the animals by employees, a process to keep the area clean from animal excrement, and a requirement that food and water receptacles for the animals be single-use, disposable containers. | Administrative | |
| MS - Initiatives - HCR 30, Establish the Right to Hunt, Fish and Harvest Wildlife as a Constitutional Right | HCR 30 (2014) | This 2014 proposed legislative referendum would establish the right to hunt and fish in the state. "Section 12A. The people have the right to hunt, fish and harvest wildlife, including by the use of traditional methods, subject only to laws and regulations that promote wildlife conservation and management and that preserve the future of hunting and fishing, as the Legislature may prescribe by general law. Public hunting and fishing shall be a preferred means of managing and controlling wildlife. This section may not be construed to modify any provision of law relating to trespass, property rights, the regulation of commercial activities or the maintenance of levees pursuant to Article 11." | Statute | ||
| AZ - Ordinances - Article 2. Board of Trustees Government After Disincorporation. | A. R. S. § 9-219 (repealed 2017) | AZ ST § 9-219 | §§ 9-211 to 9-226. Repealed by Laws 2016, Ch. 62, § 9, eff. Jan. 1, 2017 (related to powers of the board of trustees) | Statute | |
| US - Service Animals - Part 35. Nondiscrimination on the Basis of Disability in State and Local | 28 C.F.R. § 35.101 to .139 | The purpose of this part is to effectuate subtitle A of title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (42 U.S.C. 12131), which prohibits discrimination on the basis of disability by public entities. The section defines "service animal" as any dog that is individually trained to do work or perform tasks for the benefit of an individual with a disability, including a physical, sensory, psychiatric, intellectual, or other mental disability. Other species of animals, whether wild or domestic, trained or untrained, are not service animals for the purposes of this definition. | Administrative | ||
| New Jersey Revision of Statutes 1709-1877: Chapter XII Supplement: An act for the prevention of cruelty to animals. | N.J. Rev. Stat. 64-82 (1873) | A supplement to the New Jersey Revision of Statutes for 1877. The supplement covered standing for officer's of New Jersey Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals. In addition, the supplement addresses the question of jurisdiction for the enforcement the anti-cruelty laws. | Statute | ||
| Moore v. Garner | 2005 WL 1022088 (E.D.Tex.) |
Complaints were made against a plaintiff-couple about the poor conditions for over 100 dogs and other animals that were living in on the couple’s farm. The couple who owned the farm failed to do anything about it and the animals were seized. Plaintiffs brought claims against sixty defendants (mainly Van Zandt County, Texas officials) for conspiracy and violations of the Hobbs Act, Animal Welfare Act, Animal Enterprise Protection Act, RICO, the Texas Constitution and other federal statutes. The trial court granted defendants' motion to dismiss and the District Court affirmed. |
Case | ||
| MN - Health - 1721.0500. IMPORTATION OF DOGS, CATS, OR FERRETS. | MN ADC 1721.0500 | Minn. R. 1721.0500 | This Minnesota regulation states that, unless otherwise provided, a dog, cat, or ferret imported into the state must be accompanied by a certificate of veterinary inspection. A dog, cat, or ferret three months of age or older imported into the state must be currently vaccinated for rabies unless they meet all conditions of subpart 1, item D, or are exempted by the board based on the written recommendations of a licensed veterinarian who has examined the animal and who has determined that vaccination is contraindicated due to a medical condition. | Administrative | |
| ZOOLOGICAL SOCIETY OF CINCINNATI v. THE GORILLA FOUNDATION | Slip Copy, 2019 WL 414971 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 1, 2019) | In 1991, the plaintiff, Zoological Society of Cincinnati, transferred a western lowland Gorilla named Ndume who had been living at the Zoo to The Gorilla Foundation (TGF) in Northern California. Ndume was sent to TGF in hopes that he and another gorilla there, named Koko, would mate and produce offspring. That never happened. In 2015, the Zoo and TGF entered into a new written agreement which expressly superseded any prior agreements. The agreement provided that upon the death of Koko, Ndume was to be placed at an institution that is accredited by the Association of Zoos and Aquariums (AZA). TGF is not an AZA accredited institution. KoKo died and the Zoo now wants to transfer Ndume back to the zoo. TGF has not made arrangements for a transfer to be carried out. The Zoo brought this suit seeking specific enforcement of the 2015 agreement and contends that it is entitled to summary judgment in its favor. TGF argued that the agreement was illegal and unenforceable because the transfer would harm Ndume. TGF identified a number of potential risks, particularly, that Ndume has a Balantidium Coli infection. TGF contended that stress could trigger an outbreak which could be fatal. The court was unpersuaded and stated that TGF signed the 2015 agreement less than 3 years before the present dispute arose and that all of the circumstances that TGF contends makes compliance with the agreement risky existed when the agreement was negotiated. TGF also contended that the agreement is impracticable due to unreasonable (non-monetary) costs. However, the Court again stated that TGF knew these facts and circumstances when it entered into the agreement. The Court granted the Zoo's motion for summary judgment and denied TGF's request for a continuance to permit it to take discovery. The parties were ordered to confer and attempt to reach a consensus on as many aspects of the protocol for transporting Ndume to the Zoo as possible. If within 30 days of the date of the order the parties cannot reach a consensus, they will have to file a joint statement setting out any issues on which they have reached a stalemate. | Case | ||
| AK - Initiatives - Ballot Measure 1 (voter wildlife initatives) | Ballot Measure 1 (2000) | This Alaska ballot measure would change the Alaska Constitution so that voters could not use the initiative process to make laws that permit, regulate, or prohibit taking or transporting wildlife, or prescribe seasons or methods for taking wildlife. The measure failed with 36% of the vote. | Statute |