Results

Displaying 31 - 40 of 5880
Title Citation Alternate Citation Agency Citation Summary Type
Moreno v. Hughes 2016 WL 212932 (E.D. Mich. Jan. 19, 2016) This § 1983 action arises from the shooting of Plaintiffs' dog by Defendant Ronald Hughes, a Michigan Department of Corrections Absconder Recovery Unit Investigator. Defendant shot Plaintiffs' dog after entering her house by mistake to execute a fugitive warrant. This proceeding concerns a Motion in Limine filed by defendant seeking an order that plaintiffs are not entitled to noneconomic losses for the pain and suffering they sustained as a result of Defendant shooting their dog. Defendant contends that damage to personal property (including dogs) is limited to market value only. In rejecting Defendant's argument, this court found that it is "beyond dispute" that compensatory damages under § 1983 may include noneconomic injuries. A Plaintiff's interests in § 1983 actions contain different policy considerations than in traditional negligence claims. In fact, the court stated that, "[p]rohibiting recovery for emotional damages stemming from the loss of, or harm to, an animal caused by a constitutional violation would conflict with the compensatory and deterrence aims of § 1983." Additionally, applying Michigan law on the issue of emotional damages for injury to an animal would create inconsistency in civil rights actions since other states allow such damages. The court found that the determination of both compensatory and punitive damages must be left to the fact finder for each case, including this one. Defendant's Motion in Limine was denied. Case
KY - Ordinances - Chapter 258. Animal Control and Protection. KRS § 258.195 KY ST § 258.195

This Kentucky statute set up in 1954 the position of county dog warden.  Additionally in 1955, each county was to establish and maintain a dog pound as a means of facilitating and administration of this chapter.  It also provides that cities, urban-county governments, or charter county governments may enter into agreements with the counties for the enforcement of the county's ordinances.

Statute
DC - Disaster - Subchapter VI. Animal Emergency Preparedness. DC CODE § 8-1861.01 DC ST § 8-1861.01

This DC law provides that the Mayor must establish an emergency preparedness plan for the protection, sheltering, and evacuation of domestic animals during and following a major disaster or emergency within 90 days of December 5, 2008.

Statute
Kitchin ex rel. Kitchin v. Halifax County 665 S.E.2d 760 (N.C.App.,2008)

In this North Carolina case, defendant dog owners appealed from a decision of the County Board of Health that ruled their dog could not be returned home because of the dog's potential exposure to rabies as result of attacking a raccoon (the dog was scheduled for euthanization). After the Board denied the owners' appeal, they filed a complaint against county which contained motions for preliminary and permanent injunctions to prevent dog's quarantine and for class certification. The Court of Appeals held that the owners' appeal of Board's decision to quarantine dog was moot because dog had already been returned home. The action against the animal control officers was dismissed because the officers were shielded by governmental immunity.

Case
Caribbean Conservation Corp., Inc. v. Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Com'n 838 So.2d 492(Fla. 2003) 28 Fla. L. Weekly S46, 28 Fla. L. Weekly S134

The petitioners' challenge is whether the Legislature can require the newly created Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (FWCC) to comply with the requirements of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), when adopting rules or regulations in respect to those species of marine life that are defined as endangered, threatened, or species of special concern. The petitioners are not-for-profit groups and individuals who allege several statutory sections unconstitutionally usurp the constitutional authority of the FWCC to regulate marine life.  The FWCC and the Attorney General (respondents) disagree and argue that the Legislature can require the application of the APA and that the statutes that delineate power to the Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) are constitutional.  The issue was whether the creation of the FWCC also gave it power to regulate endangered, threatened, and species of special concern or whether that power remained with the DEP.  The court found that such power remained with the DEP regarding endangered and threatened species of marine life.  However, it could discern no statutory basis in effect on March 1, 1998, for the DEP having regulatory or executive power in respect to a category of marine species designated "of special concern" so that portion of the challenged statutes was held unconstitutional.

Case
State v. DeFrancesco 668 A.2d 348 (Conn. 1995) 235 Conn. 426(1995)

After the USDA went to the defendant’s house to perform a prelicense inspection for an Animal Welfare Act permit for a rabbit, the USDA discovered the defendant also kept a Bengal cat, a Jungle cat and a Bobcat on the premises; the USDA then notified the Connecticut Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) about the three cats. After the defendant’s attempt to sell the three cats, the DEP confiscated them and placed them in the care of an expert; the DEP also charged the defendant with three misdemeanor violations of General Statutes section 26-40a. After trial and appellate court determinations, the Connecticut Supreme Court found the three cats to be included on the list of prohibited felidae in General Statutes section 26-40a and found General Statutes section 26-40a did not violate Due Process.

Case
PA - Disaster - State Emergency Managment Plan Emergency Support Function #11 - Agriculture and Natural Resources Annex (2015) The Pennsylvania Emergency Management Agency (PEMA) says its mission is to "save lives, reduce suffering, and protect property and the environment by leading and coordinating Commonwealth agencies and resources to prevent, protect, prepare, respond and recover from any man-made or natural disaster." The issue of animals in disaster are dealt with in Emergency Support Function #11 - Agriculture and Natural Resources Annex (2015). This detailed document also covers issue of food safety and security during disasters. Administrative
NC - Ecoterrorism - § 99A-1. Recovery of Damages for Exceeding the Scope of Authorized Access to Property N.C.G.S.A. § 99A-1, 2 NC ST § 99A-1, 2

This law is known as North Carolina’s Property Protection Act and is what many consider to be a new variation of ag-gag law. § 99A-2 imposes a civil punishment for “exceeding the scope of authorized access to property.” A person exceeds access to authority by intentionally gaining access to the non-public areas of another’s premises and removing (and subsequently distributing) documents, recording images or sounds, placing a camera on the premises, conspiring in organized retail theft, or interfering with property. The punishment for violation of the Property Protection Act can result in equitable relief, compensatory damages, costs and fees, and exemplary damages of $5,000 per day that a defendant has acted in violation. The law is effective January 1, 2016.

Statute
HI - Therapy animals - [§ 323-51]. Animal therapy H R S § 323-51 HI ST § 323-51

This Hawaii law allows common household pets to be brought into long term health care facilities for the purpose of visiting patients. The institution can determine the rules for visitation. It also may require the animal owner o produce written documentation from a veterinarian attesting to the animal's good health.

Statute
CA - Elephant Abuse - § 596.5. Elephants; abusive behavior by owner or manager; misdemeanor West's Ann. Cal. Penal Code § 596.5 CA PENAL § 596.5

This statute makes it a misdemeanor for an owner or manager of an elephant to engage in abuse and specifies certain behaviors that qualify as abuse.

Statute

Pages