Results
Displaying 21 - 30 of 6637
| Title | Citation | Alternate Citation | Summary | Type |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Schor v. N. Braddock Borough | 801 F. Supp. 2d 369 (W.D. Pa. 2011) | Sadie, a six (6) year old pit bull and family pet was shot and killed by the Defendant Officer Wittlinger. The Plaintiff, Sadie’s owner, filed a twelve count complaint alleging four § 1983 claims under federal law against all Defendants including the borough, police department, board of supervisors, police chief, and Officer Wittlinger. The remaining eight counts alleged claims solely against the officer. The Defendants' filed a partial motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim. The Court granted the dismissal of claims against the board, police chief, and officer in their official capacities. The court also dismissed the Plaintiff’s state negligence claims. However, the court did not dismiss claims brought against Police Chief Bazzone and Officer Wittlinger in their individual capacities. The court reasoned that the facts pled by the Plaintiff were sufficient to show that Chief Bazzone may have acted with deliberate indifference by not disciplining Officer Wittlinger after a prior dog shooting incident, and maintained a custom within the Police Department that it was proper to shoot a pet dog wandering the streets. The court also denied the motion to dismiss Plaintiff’s fourth amendment rights claim. The court reasoned that the facts pled by the Plaintiff were sufficient to state a claim for violation of her Fourth Amendment rights because the plaintiff had a possessory interest in her dog Sadie as “property” and the officer used excessive force while seizing the Plaintiff’s property. | Case | |
| MN - Impound - Chapter 346. Animals | M. S. A. § 346.47 | MN ST § 346.47 (formerly MN ST § 35.71) | This is Minnesota's holding period law. This law mandates that all animals seized by public authority must be held for redemption for at least 5 business days by the impounding agency or a longer time if specified by municipal ordinance. The law requires the establishments to preserve records of the animals in custody for at least six months. A person must not release an animal seized and held under this section for research or product testing, either directly or through an animal dealer. | Statute |
| IA - Hunting, canned - 484B.4. Hunting preserve operator's license--application and license requirements | I. C. A. § 484B.4 | IA ST S 484B.4 | Under this Iowa statute, a person who owns or controls by lease or otherwise for five or more years, a contiguous tract of land having an area of not less than three hundred twenty acres, and who desires to establish a hunting preserve to propagate and sell game birds and their young or unhatched eggs, and shoot game birds and ungulates on the land, can apply to the state for an operator's license. The commission reviews the application to determine, among other things, that allowance of the license is not detrimental to wildlife and does not interfere with migratory bird activity. | Statute |
| Connecticut General Statutes 1902: Sections 2807-2816 | Conn. Gen. Stat. §§ 2807 - 2816 (1902) | The 1902 General Statutes of Connecticut sections 2807-2816 cover the following topics: definition of an animal, powers of an agent from humane society, and funding of the humane society. | Statute | |
| City of Pierre v. Blackwell | 635 N.W.2d 581 (S.D. 2001) | 2001 SD 127 |
In this South Dakota case, the owner of a dog declared by an animal control officer to be "dangerous" pursuant to Pierre City Ordinance § 10-3-111 challenged the conviction on the basis that the ordinances themselves were unconstitutional and that his constitutional right to procedural due process has been violated. The court held that the ordinances themselves were constitutional, noting the broad authority municipalities have to regulate pet ownership as a legitimate exercise of police power. The court reversed and remanded for determination on the factual issue of the dog's dangerousness. Specifically, if the City opts for a civil hearing, absent exigent circumstances, the owner of a dog is entitled to a due process hearing on the issue of dangerousness. |
Case |
| Legal materials-PETA's investigation Caucaseco Research Center- materials - can this be published but hidden? I just need the links to the docs | Relevant legal documents concerning PETA's investigation into the cruel treatment of animals at the Malaria Research Center CAUCASECO, in Cali, Colombia. | Policy | ||
| Animal Legal and Historical Center Website |
On this site you will find a comprehensive repository of information about animal law, including: over 1200 full text cases (US, historical, and UK), over 1400 US statutes, over 60 topics and comprehensive explanations, legal articles on a variety of animal topics and an international collection. |
Basic page | ||
| WI - Vehicle - 895.484. Civil liability exemption; entering a vehicle to render assistance | W. S. A. 895.484 | WI ST 895.484 | This Wisconsin law enacted in 2015 makes a person immune from civil liability for property damage or injury resulting from his or her forcible entry into a vehicle to rescue an animal or person. Immunity is provided only if certain conditions were met. The person must have a "good faith belief" that the person or domestic animal was in imminent danger of suffering bodily harm and used no more force than necessary to remove the person or animal. That person must have first determined the vehicle was locked and forcible entry was necessary, and that person must have dialed 911 or other emergency services prior to this action. In addition, the person must have waited with the person or animal until emergency services arrived or left information on the vehicle's windshield as described in the law. | Statute |
| Lawrence v. North Country Animal Control Center, Inc | 126 A.D.3d 1078, 5 N.Y.S.3d 558 (N.Y. App. Div. 2015) | 2015 WL 919734 (N.Y. App. Div. 2015) | Plaintiffs adopted a basset hound from animal control despite the fact that the dog had been turned over by a prior owner to be euthanized. The basset hound, who attacked the plaintiffs on three different occasions without injury, attacked plaintiffs' other dog. When one plaintiff tried to separate the dogs, the basset hound attacked him. Defendant removed the basset hound from the home that same day and refused to return the dog to the plaintiffs. Plaintiffs commenced this action seeking to recover damages for injuries, asserting causes of action for, among other things, negligence, fraudulent misrepresentation, products liability and intentional infliction of emotional distress. On appeal from the New York Supreme Court decision, the appellate court found that under the circumstances, issues of fact exist as to whether plaintiffs reasonably relied on defendants' misrepresentation and whether plaintiffs could have discovered the dog’s dangerous nature with due diligence. The appellate court also found that the contract clause at issue did not preclude plaintiffs from recovering for negligence because it did not “advise the signor that the waiver extended to claims that might arise from the defendant's own negligence.” The appellate court did, however, find that plaintiffs did not satisfy the “rigorous ... and difficult to satisfy requirements for a viable cause of action for intentional infliction of emotional distress.” The court also found that sanctions were not warranted. | Case |
| MA - Endangered Species - Chapter 131A. Massachusetts Endangered Species Act | M.G.L.A. 131A § 1 - 7 | MA ST 131A § 1 - 7 | This Massachusetts statute comprises the state's endangered species act. "Endangered species", any species of plant or animal in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range including those species listed under the federal ESA. The director shall conduct investigations and consult with the natural heritage and endangered species advisory committee in order to determine whether any species of plant or animal constitutes an endangered or threatened species or species of special concern. Habitat alteration permits are required under this act when any person undertakes a project that may alter a significant portion of habitat. | Statute |