Results

Displaying 81 - 90 of 6637
Title Citation Alternate Citation Summary Type
RI - Spay/Neuter - Chapter 19. Animal Care. § 4-19-18. Penalties for violations Gen.Laws 1956, § 4-19-18 RI ST § 4-19-18 This Rhode Island statute provides that violations of Sec. 4-19-16, relating to the mandatory spay/neuter agreement from a licensed releasing agency. Violations of the written agreement executed pursuant to § 4-19-16 by an adopting party are punishable by a fine of fifty dollars ($50.00) for the first offense, one hundred fifty dollars ($150) for the second offense and four hundred dollars ($400) for the third and subsequent offenses. Second and subsequent offenses may constitute grounds for seizure and forfeiture of the dog or cat. Statute
DuBois v. Quilitzsch 21 A.3d 375 (R. I. 2011) 2011 WL 2517021 (R.I.)

After a dog injured a city inspector during an inspection of a property, the inspector sued the homeowners. Inspector alleged strict liability, premises liability, and negligence. The Supreme Court entered summary judgment for the defendants on the premises-liability and negligence claims because the inspector failed to show that homeowners had knowledge of their dog's vicious propensities. These claims were subject to the common law one-bite rule (and not strict liability) because the injuries occurred within an enclosed area on the owner’s property.

Case
HI - Wildlife - Chapter 183D. Wildlife. H R S § 183D-1 - 66 HI ST § 183D-1 - § 183D-66 These statutes comprise Hawaii's wildlife provisions. Statute
Mahtani v. Wyeth Not Reported in F.Supp.2d, 2011 WL 2609857 (D.N.J.)

After some plaintiffs alleged their dogs suffered harmed as a result of using a tick and flea treatment medication, while others alleged the product was ineffective, plaintiffs sought to gain class certification in their lawsuit against a pharmaceutical company. Since the district court found that individual inquiry into questions of fact predominated over inquiry into facts common to class members regarding the plaintiffs’ New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act, Unjust Enrichment and Breach of Warranty claims, the plaintiff’s motion for class certification was denied.

Case
MO - Carthage - Breed - Sec. 4-5.1. Pit bulldogs prohibited. CARTHAGE, MO., CODE § 4-5.1

In Carthage, Missouri, it is unlawful to keep, harbor, own or possess any pit bulldog as defined. An exception is made for pit bulldogs registered as of the effective day (Jan. 26, 1993), as long as the dog is properly confined or kept on a leash and wearing a muzzle. The owner must also take photographs of the dog for identification purposes. Any person violating the provisions may be fined up to $500. The dog may also be removed from the city.

Local Ordinance
AZ - Cruelty - Consolidated Cruelty/Animal Fighting Statutes A. R. S. § 12-1011; § 13-2910 - 12; § 13-1411 AZ ST § 12-1011; § 13-2910 - 12; § 13-1411 The Arizona section contains the state's anti-cruelty and animal fighting provisions. A person commits cruelty to animals if he or she intentionally, knowingly or recklessly subjects any animal under the person's custody or control to cruel neglect or abandonment, fails to provide medical attention necessary to prevent protracted suffering to any animal under the person's custody or control, inflicts unnecessary physical injury to any animal, or recklessly subjects any animal to cruel mistreatment, among other things. Animal is defined as a mammal, bird, reptile or amphibian. Exclusions include hunting and agricultural activities in accordance with those laws and regulations in Arizona. Intentionally attending a dogfight is a felony under this provision whereas attendance at a cockfight is a misdemeanor. Statute
Maine Laws: Chapter 182 'Lands reserved for public uses.' 1883 Me. Laws 182 The act concerns the allocation of land for the public use within a township. Statute
Historical Materials

Historical Collection

  

Basic page
Cotton v. Ben Hill County 208 F. Supp. 3d 1353 (M.D. Ga. 2016) 2016 WL 5387627 (M.D. Ga. Sept. 26, 2016) In this case, Cotton filed suit against Ben Hill County after Cotton’s cattle was seized for alleged animal cruelty and roaming at large. Cotton filed suit against Ben Hill County and the Sheriff’s Department arguing that he had been deprived of his property in violation of the Due Process Clause and Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and in the violation of the Constitution of Georgia. The court reviewed the issue and granted summary judgment in favor of Ben Hill County and the Sheriff's Department. The court granted summary judgment because Cotton was unable to establish that his rights were violated under the Due Process Clause and the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Cotton was unable to establish that his Due Process rights were violated because he was unable to provide any evidence that the allegations against Ben Hill County and the Sheriff’s Department were “the result of an official policy, custom or practice of the county or that the County acted with deliberate indifference to these rights.” Also, the court found that there was not a violation of the procedural requirements of the Due Process Clause because under state law, Georgia provided for a “post deprivation remedy for the loss.” Lastly, the court found that Cotton’s claims against the Sheriff's Department failed as a matter of law because Cotton was unable to establish that anyone from the Sheriff’s Department actually participated in the seizure and impoundment of the cattle. For those reasons, the court held in favor of Ben Hill County and granted summary judgment. Case
NJ - Dogs - Consolidated Dog Laws N. J. S. A. 2A:42-101 to 2A:42-113; 2C:29-3.1; 4:19-1 to 4:19-43; 4:19A-1 - 17; 4:21B-1 - 3; 4:22A-1 to 13; 23:4-25, 26, 46; 26:4-78 - 95; 40:48-1; 54:4-83 These statutes comprise New Jersey's dog laws. Among the provisions include laws regarding domesticated animals in housing projects, rabies control laws, licensing requirements, and dangerous dog laws. Statute

Pages