Results
| Title | Citation | Alternate Citation | Agency Citation | Summary | Type |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| RI - Ordinances - § 4-13-15.1. Ordinances concerning unrestricted and vicious dogs prohibited--Leash laws | Gen.Laws 1956, § 4-13-15.1 | RI ST § 4-13-15.1 | This Rhode Island statute provides that city or town councils may make any ordinances concerning dogs in their cities or towns as the councils deem expedient, pertaining to the conduct of dogs. The statute outlines specifically what the ordinances may address, including regulations relating to unrestricted dogs, leash laws, confinement, and destruction of vicious dogs. The statute also adds additional provisions relating to the towns of Westerly and Exeter. | Statute | |
| NC - Malpractice - Chapter 90. Medicine and Allied Occupations. | N.C.G.S.A. § 90-21.12 | NC ST § 90-21.12 | This North Carolina statute provides the standard of health care in actions for damages for personal injury or death arising out of medical-based malpractice. Under the statute, the plaintiff must prove by the greater weight of the evidence that the health care provider’s actions fell below the standards of practice of other health care professionals similarly trained and situated in the same or similar communities. | Statute | |
| AR - Health - 125.00.12. Arkansas Health Requirements Governing the Entry of Livestock, Poultry, and Exotic Animals | AR ADC 125 00 001 | Ark. Admin. Code 125.00.12 | Under Section 125.00.12, it is illegal to import any animal that is affected with, or has been recently exposed to, any infectious or communicable disease. An entry permit from the Livestock and Poultry Commission and certificate of veterinary health is required to import all zoo, wild, and/or exotic animals. Prior to entry the agency requires certain disease tests appropriate to the species at issue. | Administrative | |
| Banasczek v. Kowalski | 10 Pa. D. & C.3d 94 (1979) | 1979 WL 489 (Pa.Com.Pl. 1979) |
Edward Banasczek (plaintiff) instituted an action in trespass against William Kowalski (defendant) for money damages resulting from the alleged shooting of two of plaintiff's dogs. The court held the following: “[T]he claim for emotional distress arising out of the malicious destruction of a pet should not be confused with a claim for the sentimental value of a pet, the latter claim being unrecognized in most jurisdictions. Secondly we do not think, as defendant argues, that the owner of the maliciously destroyed pet must have witnessed the death of his or her pet in order to make a claim for emotional distress.” Pennsylvania has summarily rejected a claim for loss of companionship for the death of a dog. |
Case | |
| National Meat Ass'n v. Brown | 599 F.3d 1093 (C.A.9 (Cal.), 2010) | 2010 WL 1225477 (C.A.9 (Cal.)) |
This is an interlocutory appeal brought by the State of California and defendant-intervenors The Humane Society, et al., from a preliminary injunction prohibiting the enforcement of California Penal Code § 599f, which bans the slaughter and inhumane handling of nonambulatory animals, against federally regulated swine slaughterhouses. The district court granted the preliminary injunction. On appeal, the Ninth Circuit held that Federal Meat Inspection Act (FMIA) did not expressly preempt California statute banning slaughter of nonambulatory animals. On the humane handling requirement of section 599f, the court did find that Section 599f(e) prohibits dragging of unconscious downer animals which the federal law does not. However, NMA failed to show a likelihood of irreparable injury or that the balance of the equities and the public interest tip in its favor for this provision. This court found that the lower court abused its discretion in granting a preliminary injunction, and the injunction was vacated. This case was later vacated by: National Meat Ass'n v. Harris , 680 F.3d 1193 (9th Cir., 2012). |
Case | |
| People v. Bootman | 72 N.E. 505 (N.Y. 1904) |
This is one of the first cases to construe the issue of interstate commerce with regard to state game laws and the Lacey Act. Defendant purchased game birds that were killed outside of New York and brought them into the state when it was lawful to possess them. The court stated it was required by the rule of stare decisis to hold that the Legislature did not intend to make criminal the possession during the closed season of game killed and brought here during the open season. The court notes that the passage of the New York legislation occurred three months before the passage of the Lacey, thus having no effect. The court does go on to note the Legislature has now made it clear that it is well within state police power to regulate wildlife. |
Case | ||
| US - Pets and Housing - Subpart G. Pet Ownership in Public Housing. | 24 C.F.R. § 960.701 to .707 | The purpose of this subpart is, in accordance with section 31 of the United States Housing Act of 1937 (42 U.S.C. 1437z-3), to permit pet ownership by residents of public housing, subject to compliance with reasonable requirements established by the public housing agency (PHA) for pet ownership. | Administrative | ||
| State v. Marsh | State v. Marsh, 823 P.2d 823 (Kan. Ct. App. 1991) |
Without defendant's consent or knowledge, a state animal inspector surveyed defendant's property on two occasions. Without prior notice to or consent of defendant, the State seized all of defendant's dogs. The court stated that warrantless searches and seizures had to be limited by order, statute, or regulation as to time, place, and scope in order to comport with the requirements of the Fourth Amendment. Because the Act and the order failed to so limit the search, the court concluded that it was unreasonable and unlawful. |
Case | ||
| Wolf v. Taylor | 197 P.3d 585 (Or. App., 2008) | 224 Or. App. 245 (2008) | This action comes as part of the dissolution of the parties' domestic partnership. The parties had entered into a settlement agreement, which included a provision granting full ownership of Mike, the couple's dog, to Taylor, so long as he agreed to grant Wolf visitation with Mike. Approximately one month later, Wolf had second thoughts and moved to rescind the entire agreement based on the invalidity of the dog visitation provision. Wolf asserts the provision is invalid because it attempts to grant visitation with an item of personal property, and is impossible to perform. This court only answered the question whether invalidity of the dog visitation provision would invalidate the entire agreement, which they answer in the negative because of the severability provision included in the agreement. | Case | |
| NY - Service Animal - Chapter 24-A. Of the Consolidated Laws. | McKinney's General Obligations Law § 11-107 | NY GEN OBLIG § 11-107 | Under this New York statute, a disabled person whose guide, hearing or service dog is injured due to the negligence of the owner of another dog in handling that other dog may recover damages from the owner or custodian of the non-guide guide dog. These damages include veterinarian fees, replacement or retraining costs for the guide dog, lost wages, or damages for loss of mobility during retraining or replacement of the dog. | Statute |