Results
| Title | Citation | Alternate Citation | Agency Citation | Summary | Type |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Balelo v. Baldridge | 724 F.2d 753 (1983) |
Defendants, secretary and government agencies, appealed the decision fo the United States District Court for the Southern District of California, in favor of plaintiff captains invalidating an agency regulation pertaining to the taking and related acts incidental to commercial fishing. |
Case | ||
| Assembly Bill No. 485 | An act to amend Section 31753 of the Food and Agricultural Code, and to amend Section 122357 of, and to add Section 122354.5 to, the Health and Safety Code, relating to public health. [Approved by Governor October 13, 2017. Filed with Secretary of State October 13, 2017.] | Policy | |||
| MI - Ordinances - Chapters 81 to 113 Fourth Class Cities. | M. C. L. A. 91.1 | MI ST 91.1 | This Michigan statute provides that a city incorporated under the provisions of this act has, and the council may pass ordinances relating to, the following general powers: To provide for the issuing of licenses to the owners and keepers of dogs and to require the owners and keepers of dogs to pay for and obtain such licenses; and to regulate and prevent the running at large of dogs, to require dogs to be muzzled, and to authorize the killing of dogs running at large or not licensed in violation of an ordinance of the city. | Statute | |
| HI - Dog Bite - Chapter 142. Animals, Brands, and Fences. | H R S § 142-74, 75 | HI ST § 142-74, 75 | This Hawaii statute provides that the owner of any dog that has bitten a human being shall have the duty to take such reasonable steps as are necessary to prevent the recurrence of such incident. Whenever a dog has bitten a human being on at least two separate occasions (with no applicable exceptions), any person may bring an action against the owner of the dog. Each county may enact and enforce ordinances regulating persons who own, harbor, or keep any dog that has bitten, injured, or maimed a person. No ordinance enacted under this subsection shall be held invalid on the ground that it covers any subject or matter embraced within any statute or rule of the State; provided that the ordinance shall not affect the civil liability of a person owning the offending dog. | Statute | |
| People v. O'Rourke | 83 Misc.2d 175 (N.Y.City Crim.Ct. 1975) | 369 N.Y.S.2d 335 (N.Y.City Crim.Ct. 1975) |
The owner of a horse was guilty of cruelty to animals for continuing to work a horse he knew was limping. The court found that defendant owner was aware that the horse was unfit for labor, and was thus guilty of violating N.Y. Agric. & Mkts. Law § 353 for continuing to work her. |
Case | |
| Animal Legal Defense Fund v. State, Dept. of Wildlife and Fisheries | 140 So.3d 8 (La.App. 1 Cir. 4/25/13) | 2012-0971 (La.App. 1 Cir. 4/25/13), 2013 WL 1774638 |
The Animal Legal Defense Fund (ALDF), along with others, filed a petition for injunctive relief and a writ of mandamus against the Louisiana Department of Wildlife and Fish (DWF) for permitting the exhibit of a real tiger ("Tony") at a truck stop owned by Michael Sandlin. An ordinance prohibiting the display of wild animals was in effect when Tony was acquired. Subsequent to that, the Louisiana legislature adopted a law that required those who legally held big cats who were "grandfathered in," obtain a permit from the DWF. After Tony's caretaker, Michael Sandlin was denied a DWF permit because he was not in compliance with the Parish ordinances, Sandlin sued the Parish. The Parish then carved out an exception for him in the ordinances and the DWF, through Secretary Barham, issued a state permit to Sandlin. ADLF and others sued, alleging that the permit violated Louisiana law and the renewal of the permit was arbitrary, capricious, and an abuse of discretion. At the first trial court hearing, the trial court issued a judgment granting the preliminary and permanent injunction ordering DFW to revoke the permit, but the truck stop owner alleged he had not received notice of the hearing and therefore decided to intervene. Once the truck stop was allowed to intervene, a hearing on all pending issues was held, which resulted in the intervenors appealing the trial court’s judgment and the trial court’s denial for a new trial. On appeal here, the appeals court dismissed the appeal, in part, and affirmed, in part, the November 17, 2011 judgment of the trial court. With regard to the issue of standing for the injunction, this court found that the individual named plaintiffs (residents of Louisiana) had taxpayer standing, but the court did not find that plaintiff ALDF alleged and proved sufficient interest to sustain a right of action seeking an injunction against any unlawful conduct by DWF. That part of the November 17, 2011 judgment of the trial court was reversed. Further, the court found that, based on factual findings, there was no error in the trial court's legal conclusion that Michael Sandlin did not meet the legal requirements for a Potentially Dangerous Wild Quadruped permit, and that permanent injunctive relief, enjoining DWF from issuing Michael Sandlin future permits for Tony, was warranted. That part of the trial court judgment was affirmed. |
Case | |
| AZ - Disaster planning - Arizona State Emergency Response and Recovery Plan | Arizona State Emergency Response and Recovery Plan | This part of Arizona's emergency response plan describes the state's responsibility toward pets and service animals. | Administrative | ||
| LA - Hunting - § 116.5. Computer-assisted remote hunting prohibited; penalties | LSA-R.S. 56:116.5 | This Louisiana law provides that it is a class six violation for any person to engage in computer-assisted remote hunting or provide or operate a facility or provide services that allow others to engage in computer-assisted remote hunting. | Statute | ||
| DE - Tether, dog - Chapter 9. Dogs. | 16 Del.C. § 3044F | DE ST TI 16 § 3044F | This Delaware statute addresses the requirements for indoor and outdoor facilities housing dogs. It includes storage, drainage, waste disposal, ventilation, lighting, shelter, height, and surface requirements. Food, water, and use of tethers are also addressed. The tether shall be of a type commonly used for the size dog involved, made of material not normally susceptible to being severed by the dog through chewing or otherwise, and shall be attached to the dog by means of a well-fitted collar that will not cause trauma or injury to the dog. The tether shall be a minimum of 10 feet in length and allow the dog convenient access to the dog house and to food and water containers. | Statute | |
| Stoffels v. Harmony Hill Farm | 2006 WL 3699549 (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 2006) |
An owner of a horse farm acquired a new horse that had only recently been broken in and got a woman with some health problems to ride the horse. The horse bucked and threw the defendant off the horse causing injury. The court held that even though riders assume the risk of most injuries, a horse owner can be liable for failure to take reasonable measures to match the rider to a suitable horse. |
Case |