Results
Displaying 6591 - 6600 of 6638
| Title | Citation | Alternate Citation | Agency Citation | Summary | Type |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Drake v. Dean | 15 Cal. App. 4th 915 (Cal.App.3.Dist. 1993) | 15 Cal.App.4th 915 (Cal.App.3.Dist. 1993) |
Plaintiff, engaged in religious solicitations, was knocked down by dog owner's pit bull on the defendant's driveway. She argued that the superior court should have instructed on negligence in addition to strict liability. The court agreed, finding that a negligence cause of action arises whenever there is insufficient control of a dog in a context in which it could be reasonably expected that injury could occur and injury did proximately result from the negligence. Thus, the court reversed the decision for defendant dog owners. |
Case | |
| DE - Fur - Chapter 5. Specific Offenses | 11 Del.C. § 1325A | DE ST TI 11 § 1325A | In Delaware, a person is guilty of the unlawful trade in dog or cat by-products in the 2nd degree if the person knowingly or recklessly sells, barters or offers for sale or barter, the fur or hair of a domestic dog or cat or any product made in whole or in part from the fur or hair of a domestic dog or cat. The unlawful trade in dog or cat by-products in the 2nd degree is a class B misdemeanor. A person is guilty of the unlawful trade in dog or cat by-products in the 1st degree if the person knowingly or recklessly sells, barters or offers for sale or barter, the flesh of a domestic dog or cat or any product made in whole or in part from the flesh of a domestic dog or cat. The unlawful trade in dog or cat by-products in the first degree is a class A misdemeanor. | Statute | |
| US - Divorce/Custody - United States. Uniform Marital Property Act. Section 4. Classification of Property of Spouses. | ULA Marital Property Act s 4 | Uniform act created to address division of marital property upon divorce in community property jurisdictions. | Statute | ||
| AR - Emergency - § 20-13-217. Gabo's Law--Police dogs--Injured on duty | A.C.A. § 20-13-217 | AR ST § 20-13-217 | This section shall be known and may be cited as “Gabo's Law." An emergency medical services personnel or an emergency medical services provider may transport a police dog injured in the course of a law enforcement or correctional agency's work to a veterinary hospital or clinic if there is not a person requiring immediate medical attention or transport at the time. | Statute | |
| IN - Animal Sacrifice - THE TELANGANA ANIMALS AND BIRDS SACRIFICES PROHIBITION ACT, 1950 | XXXII OF 1950 | The Act, specific to the South Indian state of Telangana, prohibits animal and bird sacrifice at places of public religious worship or in congregations associated with religious worship in a public street. Persons sacrificing animals can be imprisoned under this law. The law also prohibits persons from officiating at such animal sacrifices. Such persons can be fined. Animal sacrifice or officiating at an animal sacrifice is a cognizable offence—the accused can be arrested without a warrant. | Statute | ||
| CA - Impound - § 597e. Domestic animals; impounding without sufficient food or water; | West's Ann. Cal. Penal Code § 597e | CA PENAL § 597e | This statute requires anyone who impounds an animal to supply the animal with sufficient food and water. It also states that if an animal is not provided with food and water, a person may enter the pound where the animal is being held, and provide it with food and water without being liable for the entry. | Statute | |
| Canada - New Brunswick Statutes - Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act | R.S.N.B. 1973, c. S-12, s. 0.1 - 32(2) | This set of laws establishes the New Brunswick Society for the Prevention of Cruelty. Under the Act, the Minister may appoint an officer, agent or employee of the society or any other person to be an animal protection officer who shall attend to the enforcement of this Act. Where an animal has been seized under this Act, the animal protection officer shall within 3 business days notify the owner or make reasonable attempts to identify and notify the owner. A person who has ownership, possession or the care and control of an animal shall provide the animal with food, water, shelter and care in accordance with the regulations. | Statute | ||
| Whiteaker v. City of Southgate | 651 F. Supp. 3d 893 (E.D. Mich. 2023) | 2023 WL 317457 (E.D. Mich. Jan. 19, 2023) | The plaintiff (“Whiteaker”) filed this action against Defendant, the City of Southgate, Michigan for violations of the Fair Housing Act (“FHA”) and Michigan's Persons with Disabilities Civil Rights Act (“PDCRA”). Specifically, Whiteaker contends that the City violated the FHA by denying Whiteaker's request for an exemption from City Ordinance 610.13, which prohibits City residents from maintaining chickens (or other typical farm animals) on their property. The events underlying this action began after Whiteaker moved to Southgate in early March 2021. On March 24, 2021, Whiteaker was issued a citation by the City for a violation of Ordinance 610.13. Whiteaker appeared in district court to defend himself, claiming he had a right to keep the chickens under Michigan's Right to Farm Act. However, it turned out the Right to Farm law was inapplicable because Whiteaker's chicken coop was within 250 feet of a dwelling. Thus, Whiteaker was issued a second citation in May and was denied a permit to keep the chickens by the city. Since Whiteaker was a longtime sufferer of depression and anxiety, he sought a waiver from the ordinance as a reasonable accommodation for his disability and presented a letter from his mental health provider as support. Again, his request was denied by the City. In the instant motion for summary judgement by the City, the court examined the "reasonableness" of Whiteaker's request for a reasonable accommodation under the FHA. The court found that the balancing test required under the FHA, to wit, weighing Whiteaker's disability-related need to keep the chickens as a source of comfort and support against the City's claims that the chickens pose a threat to public health, is a triable issue of fact. Indeed, the court observed that the City's citation of documentation from the CDC only lists the "potential dangers" chickens can pose to public health without sufficient evidence to supports its claim that the chickens will burden the City financially and administratively. In contrast, Whiteaker claims a disability and has provided evidence of his disability. Likewise, as to the remaining elements of necessity and equal opportunity for a reasonable accommodation claim, the court again cites Whiteaker's evidentiary support for his claim of disability and need for the chickens to alleviate those symptoms against the fact the City has not presented any testimony, affidavits, or "evidence of any kind" to support its claim. Thus, the court denied the motion for summary judgment. | Case | |
| MI - Cruelty - 752.91. Sale of dyed or artificially colored baby chicks, rabbits or ducklings | M. C. L. A. 752.91 - 92 | MI ST 752.91 - 92 | This law makes it unlawful for any person, firm or corporation to sell, or offer for sale, any baby chicks, rabbits, ducklings, or other fowl or game which have been dyed or otherwise artificially colored. Violation is a misdemeanor. | Statute | |
| European Union - Farming - Protection of Laying Hens | Official Journal L 203, 3 August 1999, pp. 53–57 | COUNCIL DIRECTIVE 1999/74/EC | This Directive establishes minimum standards for the protection of laying hens, particularly in respect to the equipment, drinking and feeding conditions, and facilities where the hens are kept. It does not apply to establishments with fewer than 350 laying hens, nor to establishments rearing breeding laying hens. It only applies to hens of the species Gallus gallus which have reached laying maturity and are kept for production of eggs not intended for hatching. | Administrative |