Results
Displaying 81 - 90 of 6638
| Title | Citation | Alternate Citation | Agency Citation | Summary | Type |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Dreyer v. Cyriacks | 112 Cal.App. 279 (1931) | 297 P. 35 (1931) | Plaintiffs brought action against Defendant for damages after Defendant shot and killed Plaintiffs’ dog. The Trial Court set aside a jury verdict granting Plaintiffs $100,000 in actual and $25,000 in punitive damages, on the ground that the verdict was excessive. On appeal, the District Court of Appeal, First District, Division 1, California, affirmed the Trial Court decision, finding that the Trial Court was justified in holding that both the actual and punitive damages awards were grossly excessive, given the circumstances under which the incident occurred. In making its decision, the Court of Appeal pointed out that, although this particular dog had been in the motion picture industry, dogs are nonetheless considered property, and as such, are to be ascertained in the same manner as other property, and not in the same manner as human life. | Case | |
| IN - Cattle Slaughter - SIKKIM PREVENTION OF COW SLAUGHTER ACT, 2017 | 17 of 2017 | This law, specific to the North Eastern state of Sikkim, prohibits the slaughter of cows and their female progeny. 'Cows' under this Act refer to milking cows, dry cows, heifers and calves. Cows may not be slaughtered unless a certificate in writing is obtained from the Competent Authority. Persons slaughtering cows without obtaining a certificate shall be imprisoned and fined. | Statute | ||
| IL - Police dog - Act 83. Police Service Dog Protection Act | 510 I.L.C.S. 83/1 - 83/15 | IL ST CH 510 § 83/1 - 83/15 | This 2019 set of laws is known as the Police Service Dog Protection Act. It requires that the law enforcement agency or handler of the police dog shall be required to have every police dog receive, at minimum, an annual medical examination by a licensed veterinarian. Further, a vehicle transporting a police dog must be equipped with a heat sensor monitoring device that provides a visual and audible notification if the interior temperature reaches 85 degrees F as well as a safety mechanism to reduce the interior temperature. | Statute | |
| Holt v. City of Sauk Rapids | 559 N.W.2d 444 | 1997 Minn. App. LEXIS 203 | Sauk Rapids, Minnesota passed a city ordinance limiting the number of dogs that could be kept in a residential home. The appellants were dog owners, breeders, and Ms. Holt, who also rescued Newfoundland dogs help find new homes for them. The lower court held that the ordinances were unconstitutional, but the city appealed and on appeal the court reversed the finding. Minnesota law granted the municipality the authority to regulate public and private property, including regulating the keeping of dogs on residential property. City Hall received many complaints concerning dogs, so the Sauk Rapids ordinance was introduced by the mayor to address issues with dog odor and noise. Because limiting the number of dogs can reduce odor and noise, the court found that there was a rational relationship between the ordinance and reducing the problems associated with the dogs. The dog owners failed to show that the ordinance was unreasonable. The constitutionality was upheld because the ordinance was rationally related to the health, safety, and general welfare of the community as affected by dogs. | Case | |
| Canada - P.E.I. Statutes - Companion Animal Protection Act | CHAPTER A-11.2 | This set of laws comprises the Prince Edward Island (PEI) Companion Animal Protection Act. The act outlines the duties of animal owners including a duty to provide animals with adequate food, water, and shelter and access to veterinary care when injured or ill. Further, under the act, no person shall torture an animal or inflict on or cause unnecessary pain or suffering to an animal. Additionally, no person shall perform, or permit to be performed, cosmetic surgery on an animal unless medically necessary (as defined). No person shall operate a companion animal retail store unless the person holds a license issued by the Director for that purpose. The disposition of seized animals is described in the law as well as appointment of humane agents. A person found to be violating the act is subject to a fine of not less than $500 and not more than $10,000, and/or imprisonment for a term of not more than six months, with increasing fines and incarceration terms for subsequent offences. | Statute | ||
| OH - Cincinnati - Breed - § 701-6. - Possession of a Dangerous or Vicious Dog Prohibited. | CINCINNATI, OH., MUNICIPAL CODE §§ 701-6 - 701-10 (1999) |
The municipal code of Cincinnati, Ohio makes it illegal to own, possess, breed, sell or transfer ownership of a pit bull terrier. The pit bull ban applies to dogs that were not registered prior to November 1, 2003. The exempted dogs are permitted to remain within the city as long as the owner stays in compliance with the laws. The statutes also require that dangerous dogs be micro-chipped and owners are required to maintain liability insurance of at least $100,000 in case someone is injured or killed by a vicious dog. |
Local Ordinance | ||
| Rivero v. Humane Soc. of Fayette County | Slip Copy, 2009 WL 18704 (W.D.Pa.) | Plaintiffs brought action against Defendants under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging Defendants violated their First and Fourth Amendment rights under the United States Constitution after Defendant dog control officers removed Plaintiffs’ dog from their home during an investigation into a report of a dead dog. The United States District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania granted Defendant Township’s motion for partial summary judgment, finding that Plaintiffs’ allegations, standing alone, do not state a claim against Defendant-Township, and that Plaintiffs failed to provide any factual support for their state law claims. | Case | ||
| Anderson v. Creighton | 483 US 635 (1987) |
Suit was brought against FBI agent seeking damages resulting from warrantless search of residents' home. |
Case | ||
| OR - Hunting, Internet - 635-065-0740. Hunting Prohibited | OR ADC 635-065-0740 | OAR 635-065-0740 | It is unlawful in Oregon to engage in computer-assisted hunting (Internet hunting) or provide or operate facilities for computer-assisted hunting in Oregon. As used in this act, “computer-assisted hunting” (Internet hunting) means the use of a computer or any other device, equipment, or software to remotely control the aiming and discharge of a firearm, bow, or any other weapon to hunt any game bird, wildlife, game mammal, or other mammal, and “facilities for computer-assisted remote hunting” means real property and improvements on the property associated with hunting, including hunting blinds, offices and rooms equipped to facilitate computer-assisted remote hunting. Nothing in subsection (8) of this section prohibits the use of computer-assisted hunting by employees or agents of county, state or federal agencies while acting in their official capacities. | Administrative | |
| Journal of Animal Law Table of Contents Volume 2 |
Published by the students of Michigan State University College of LawJournal of Animal Law Vol. II (2006)The table of contents is provided below. |
Policy |