|Title||Citation||Alternate Citation||Agency Citation||Summary||Type|
|De Leon v. Vornado Montehiedra Acquisition L.P.||166 F. Supp. 3d 171 (D.P.R. 2016)||2016 WL 814825 (D.P.R. 2016)||The defendant in this case sought to dismiss plaintiff’s case, stating that the plaintiff claim did not have proper constitutional standing under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). The court denied defendant’s request and held that plaintiff did present sufficient evidence to establish standing under the ADA. In order to establish standing, the plaintiff needed to prove three elements: (1) actual or threatened injury, (2) causal connection between the injury and the challenged conduct, and (3) that a favorable court decision can redress the injury. The court determined that plaintiff did satisfy all three elements by showing that plaintiff’s disabled daughter was not allowed in defendant’s shopping mall with her service dog after the mall security guard was not properly informed of protocol regarding service dogs. Ultimately, the security guard mistakenly believed that the service dog needed documentation in order to enter the mall; however, the dog was properly identified as a certified service dog and should have been allowed into the mall. Defendant's motion to dismiss was denied.||Case|
|Great Apes and Chimpanzees||Policy|
|LA - Dog - Consolidated Dog Laws||LSA-R.S. 13:5544 - 45; LSA-R.S.3:2451 - 2778; LSA-R.S. 56:124.1, 141; LSA-R.S. § 40:1269.1 - 4; LSA-R.S. 49:165||These statutes comprise Louisiana's dog laws. Included among the provisions are dangerous dog laws, impoundment provisions, and the relevant licensing requirements.||Statute|
|DE - Pet Sales - CHAPTER 40. PET WARRANTIES||6 Del.C. § 4001 - 4011||DE ST TI 6 § 4001 - 4011||
This Delaware statutory section comprises the state's "pet warranty" laws. Purchasers receive a statement of the dog's breed and any registration information when buying pets from a retail pet store under the law. Sellers are required to disclose any known disease or illness at the time of sale. Further, sellers must provide the following written statement when selling a registered pet: "A pedigree or a registration does not assure proper breeding condition, health, quality or claims to lineage." Buyers may receive a refund or replacement, or have veterinary expenses reimbursed by a seller where a dog becomes ill or dies within 20 days of purchase (or within two years for a congenital disorder).
|People v. Parker (Unpublished)||1999 WL 33435342 (Unpublished Mich. 1999)||
Defendants-appellees, who were bound over on the charge of knowingly attending an animal fight and of knowingly organizing, promoting, or collecting money for the fighting of an animal, filed a motion to suppress evidence and motions to quash the information. The trial court granted the motions and dismissed the case. The prosecution appealed and the appellate court found that there was sufficient evidence to create an issue of fact, and that evidence that had been obtained in violation of defendant Parker's Fourth Amendment rights was admissible against all defendants except Parker. Finally, as to the defendants' challenge that the statute was unconstitutionally vague and overbroad, the court declared that it had already determined that the language was neither vague nor overbroad. Reversed and remanded for trial.
|Anderson v. City of Blue Ash||798 F.3d 338 (6th Cir. 2015)||2015 WL 4774591 (6th Cir., 2015)||This case stems from a dispute between Plaintiff/Appellant and the city of Blue Ash (City) on whether Plaintiff/Appellant could keep a miniature horse at her house as a service animal for her disabled minor daughter. Plaintiff/Appellant’s daughter suffers from a number of disabilities that affect her ability to walk and balance independently, and the horse enabled her to play and get exercise in her backyard without assistance from an adult. In 2013, the City passed a municipal ordinance banning horses from residential property and then criminally prosecuted plaintiff/appellant for violating it. Plaintiff/Appellant’s defense was that the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”), and the Fair Housing Amendments Act (“FHAA”), both entitled her to keep the horse at her house as a service animal for her daughter. Rejecting those arguments, the Hamilton County Municipal Court found Plaintiff/Appellant guilty. Plaintiff/Appellant filed suit in federal court arguing that the ADA and FHAA entitled her to keep her horse as a service animal. The district court granted summary judgment to the City, finding that Plaintiff/Appellant's claims were barred by claim and issue preclusion stemming from her Municipal Court conviction. On appeal, the Sixth Circuit found that, because the fact-finding procedures available in a criminal proceeding in municipal court differed substantially from those available in a civil proceeding, Plaintiff/Appellant's conviction had no preclusive effect on this lawsuit. Furthermore, while there was no evidence that the City's actions were motivated by discriminatory intent against the minor daughter or had a disparate impact on disabled individuals, there were significant factual disputes regarding whether the ADA or FHAA required the City to permit Plaintiff/Appellant to keep her miniature horse at her house. The district court's grant of summary judgment to the City on those claims was therefore reversed.||Case|
|NV - Rabies - Chapter 441A. Infectious Diseases; Toxic Agents||NV ADC 441A.410 to 445||NAC 441A.410 to 445||
NAC 441A.410 Appointment of rabies control authority; ordinance providing for rabies control program; authority of county, city or town to require licenses for dogs, cats and ferrets; duty of county, city or town to provide certain information to State Health Officer or repres
|IA - Ordinances - 351.36. Enforcement||I. C. A. § 351.36||IA ST § 351.36||This Iowa statute provides that local health and law enforcement officials shall enforce state provisions relating to vaccination and impoundment of dogs. It further states that such public officials shall not be responsible for any accident or disease of a dog resulting from the enforcement of the provisions of the sections.||Statute|
|CA - Horse tack - § 597k. Bristle bur, tack bur, etc.; use on animals||West's Ann. Cal. Penal Code § 597k||CA PENAL § 597k||
This section makes it a misdemeanor to use a bristle bur, tack bur, or similar device, to be used on a horse or any other animal. A violation is punishable with imprisonment and/or imprisonment.
|Moore v. People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, Inc.||932 N.E.2d 448 (Ill.App. 1 Dist., 2010)||2010 WL 2266081 (Ill.App. 1 Dist.), 402 Ill.App.3d 62||
Plaintiffs, Ami Moore and Doggie Do Right-911, Inc., aver that defendants PETA, Diane Opresnik, John Keene, and Mary DePaolo defamed them and placed them in a false light by stating that the plaintiff dog trainer placed a shock device on a dog's genitals and allegedly shocked it. Prior to this action, the claim against PETA was settled and dismissed. The defamation claims against Opresnik, Keene, and DePaolo, persisted. In dismissing the remaining claims, the court found that there was no positive factual statement of criminal animal cruelty to support a defamation per se claim. Further, another claim fell outside the statute of limitations period and was also inadequately supported by specific allegations.