Results
Displaying 6001 - 6010 of 6638
| Title | Citation | Alternate Citation | Summary | Type |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| MA - Hunting - Chapter 131. Inland Fisheries and Game and Other Natural Resources. | M.G.L.A. 131 § 5C | MA ST 131 § 5C | This law reflects Massachusetts' hunter harassment provision. Under the law, no person shall obstruct, interfere with or otherwise prevent the lawful taking of fish or wildlife by another at the locale where such activity is taking place. Acts prohibited include, but are not limited to, driving or disturbing wildlife, harassing another engaged in lawful taking of fish or wildlife, interjecting oneself into the line of fire, or erecting barriers to prevent access. A person may seek an injunction to prevent violation of this section and a person who sustains damages from any act in violation of the law may bring a civil action for punitive damages. | Statute |
| US - Conservation - Fish & Wildlife Conservation Act | 16 USC 2901 - 2912 | The Fish and Wildlife Conservation Act, approved September 29, 1980, authorizes financial and technical assistance to the States for the development, revision, and implementation of conservation plans and programs for nongame fish and wildlife. The original Act authorized $5 million for each of Fiscal Years 1982 through 1985, for grants for development and implementation of comprehensive State nongame fish and wildlife plans and for administration of the Act. It also required the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to study potential mechanisms for funding these activities and report to Congress by March 1984. | Statute | |
| Overlook Mut. Homes, Inc. v. Spencer | 666 F. Supp. 2d 850 (S.D. Ohio 2009) | The barking of Scooby the dog, caught the attention of nearby neighbors, and the Plaintiff, Overlook Mutual Housing Corporation. Overlook established a no-pet rule for its residents with an exception for service animals. Scooby's owners (the Spencers) received a letter warning them to remove the dog from their home. In response, the Spencers obtained a letter which requested that Overlook make a reasonable accommodation for their daughter Lynsey, who needed a support dog to facilitate in her psychological treatment. Overlook did not grant the Spencer's request for accommodation and filed a Complaint against them. The Spencers then filed a counter claim and Overlook then moved for summary judgment. The court stated that pet policies have to comply with the Federal Fair Housing Act (FHA). Based on the intent of the FHA to provide reasonable accommodation rather than public access like the ADA, HUD and the DOJ's recently revised regulations on the need for emotional support animals in HUD-assisted housing, and previous actions brought against housing providers that denied emotional support animals, this court concluded that emotional support animals can qualify as reasonable accommodations under the FHA. Further, the court held that they do not need to be individually trained like service animals. Overlook's motion for summary judgment was denied. | Case | |
| ID - Dangerous Dogs running at large - Chapter 28. Dogs. | I.C. § 25-2805 | ID ST § 25-2805 | This Idaho statute provides that any person who lets his or her dog run at large after a complaint has been made to the sheriff shall be guilty of an infraction punishable as provided in section 18-113A, Idaho Code. Any person who lets his or her dog physically attack someone when not provoked shall be guilty of a misdemeanor in addition to any liability as provided in section 25-2806, Idaho Code. For a second or subsequent violation of this subsection, the court may, in the interest of public safety, order the owner to have the vicious dog destroyed or may direct the appropriate authorities to destroy the dog. | Statute |
| CA - Slaughter - § 598b. Animals commonly kept as pets or companions; use as food; violation; exceptions | West's Ann. Cal. Penal Code § 598b | CA PENAL § 598b | This statute makes it a misdemeanor to possess, import into, or export from, California, sell, buy, give away, or accept any carcass of any animal commonly kept as a pet with the intent of using any part of that carcass for food. It is also a misdemeanor to possess, import, export, buy, sell, give away or accept a common pet animal with the intent of killing it for food. | Statute |
| Causa Penal No. 15241-2022-00006 | Causa Penal No. 15241-2022-00006 | Following the Estrellita case (Constitutional Court decision No. 253-20-JH/22), in 2022, the owner of "Cuqui Brown," a two-fingered sloth filed a habeas corpus petition following his seizure by the authorities. In this case, the court denied the habeas corpus and held that the plaintiff violated "Cuqui Brown's" rights established in Estrellita's case. | Case | |
| Big Cats of Serenity Springs, Inc. v. Vilsack | --- F.Supp.3d ----, 2015 WL 1432069 (D. Colo. 2015) | 2015 WL 1432069 (D. Colo. 2015) | In an amended complaint, Plaintiffs asserted four claims against Defendants relating to a May 7, 2013 United States Department of Agriculture inspection of Big Cats of Serenity Springs, Inc. The claims included a Fourth Amendment right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures; a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claim against the Inspector Defendants “because they acted under color of state law when they induced the deputies to cut the chains and enter the premises;” a declaratory judgment “declaring that [Defendant] Thompson inappropriately overrode the medical advice of [Plaintiff] Big Cats' veterinarians and declaring that, in the future, the USDA cannot force [Plaintiff] Sculac to choose between following the medical advice of his veterinarians and the mandates of a USDA inspector;” and a declaratory judgment that the USDA must follow its own regulations and that it cannot conduct a warrantless search of the Big Cats facility outside of ‘normal business hours' solely because an inspector ‘want [s] to’ or because an inspector subjectively ‘believe[s][it] necessary to determine the welfare status of the animals....' ” In addition to declaratory relief, Plaintiffs also sought compensatory and punitive damages, costs, expenses, and prejudgment interest. Defendants filed a motion to dismiss. US Magistrate Judge issued a recommendation that, to the extent the Motion argued that the declaratory judgment claims should be dismissed because Plaintiffs lack standing, the Motion be granted in part and denied in part and that the declaratory judgment claims asserted by Plaintiffs Nick Sculac, Julie Walker, and Jules Investment, Inc. be dismissed without prejudice. In all other aspects, the Magistrate recommended that the Motion be denied. A District Court judge approved and adopted these recommendations and denied defendant’s objections to the recommendations. | Case |
| Austria - Animal Welfare - Federal Animal Protection Act | Bundesgesetzblatt für die Republik Österreich, Part I, No. 118, 28 September 2004, 21 pp. | The subject Federal Act, in English, aims at the protection of life and well-being of all animals based on man’s special responsibility for the animal as a fellow-creature. The Federal, Laender and Municipal authorities are obligated to create and deepen understanding for animal protection on the part of the public and in particular on the part of youth. In this Act, it is unlawful to inflict unjustified pain, suffering or injury on an animal or expose it to heavy fear, as well as to kill animals without reason. Interventions carried out for other than therapeutic or diagnostic purposes or for the expert marking of animals in accordance with legal regulations applicable, are prohibited and particulars are listed. | Statute | |
| US - Housing - Fair Housing. Subchapter I. Generally. Section 3602. Definitions. | 42 U.S.C.A. 3601 - 3604 | The following sections of the Fair Housing Act relate to "reasonable accommodations" for persons with a handicap or disability. In Section 3602, the definition of "handicap" includes a person with: (1) a physical or mental impairment which substantially limits one or more of such person's major life activities; (2) a record of having such an impairment, or (3) being regarded as having such an impairment. Section 3604 is the operative part of the law that makes it unlawful to discriminate because of a handicap in the sale or rental of a dwelling. Under subsection (3)(B), the law states that discrimination includes the refusal to make "reasonable accommodations in rules, policies, practices, or services, when such accommodations may be necessary to afford such person equal opportunity to use and enjoy a dwelling." | Statute | |
| AR - Pet Sales - Chapter 97. Retail Pet Stores. | A.C.A. §§ 4-97-101 to 109 | AR ST §§ 4-97-101 to 109 | This statutory section comprises the Arkansas Retail Pet Store Consumer Protection Act of 1991. The purpose of the act is to ensure that purchasers receive consumer animals that are physically and temperamentally sound, healthy, and fit as companions. The Act also provides a means by which the acquisition and care of those animals can be monitored. | Statute |