Results
| Title | Citation | Alternate Citation | Summary | Type |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| MA - Hunting, Internet - § 65A. Online Shooting or Spearing | M.G.L.A. 131 § 65A | Mass. Gen. Laws Ann. ch. 131, § 65A (West) | This statute prohibits hunting via the Internet and the operation of online hunting businesses within the state of Massachusetts. Violation is punished by imprisonment in the house of correction for not more than 2 1/2 years or by a fine of not more than $2,500, or by both a fine and imprisonment. | Statute |
| LA - Dog Dangerous - Chapter 1. Criminal Code. | LA R.S. 14:102.14 | This Louisiana statute defines a "dangerous dog" as any dog which when unprovoked, on two separate occasions within the prior thirty-six-month period, engages in any behavior that requires a defensive action by any person to prevent bodily injury when the person and the dog are off the property of the owner of the dog; or any dog which, when unprovoked, bites a person causing an injury; or any dog which, when unprovoked, on two separate occasions within the prior thirty-six-month period, has killed, seriously bitten, inflicted injury, or otherwise caused injury to a domestic animal off the property of the owner of the dog. It is unlawful for any person to own a dangerous dog without properly restraining or confining the dog. | Statute | |
| Mitchell v. Union Pacific Railroad Co. | 188 F.Supp. 869 (D.C.Cal. 1960) |
In Mitchell v. Union Pacific R.R. Co. , 188 F.Supp. 869 (S.D. Cal. 1960), an expert was allowed to testify about a dog’s income-potential based on evidence that the dog could perform special tricks and made numerous appearances at charitable events. A jury verdict amounting to $5,000 was upheld where the court determined that the amount was not excessive and evidence of the dog’s income potential was not improper. |
Case | |
| COMPASSION IN WORLD FARMING LIMITED v.THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE ENVIRONMENT, FOOD AND RURAL AFFAIRS |
Plaintiff organization suggest that the UK government has not adopted adequate regulations for the protection of broiler chickens, under the obligations of EEC Directives or under UK law. |
Pleading | ||
| Mansbridge v Nichols | [2004] VSC 530 |
The appellant was convicted of seven offences under the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act 1986 (Vic) related to the appellant's treatment of merino sheep in her care. The appellant was successful in overturning three of the charges on the basis that they were latently duplicitous or ambiguous. The appellant was unsuccessful in arguing that the trial judge failed to give adequate reasons. |
Case | |
| Animal Legal Defense Fund v. United States Department of Agriculture | 2016 WL 7235624 (C.D. Cal. Dec. 14, 2016) |
Foie gras is a food product made from the liver of a duck or goose. To create it, the duck or goose is force-fed a special mix of food which causes a large buildup of fat in the bird's liver. This gives the product its signature taste. Plaintiffs, Animal Legal Defense Fund, comprised of four animal rights organizations and three individuals. The Defendant, United States Department of Agriculture, comprised of the Food Safety and Inspection Services (FSIS), and two individuals. Plaintiff Animal Legal Defense Fund asked Defendant (FSIS) to initiate rulemaking under the Poultry Products Inspection Act (PPIA) “to exclude Foie gras from the food supply as an adulterated and diseased product.” They argued that the force-feeding process could cause infections and illnesses for the animals and the consumption of the birds could trigger the onset of illness and disease in humans. FSIS denied the petition to ban the food product. The Plaintiff Animal Legal Defense Fund then filed this action for judicial review. Defendant FSIS argued that the Plaintiffs lacked Article III standing, that the PPIA does not protect the interests asserted by the animal rights organizations, and that in any event, FSIS acted within its discretion in denying the petition. The United States District Court, C.D. California concluded that the Plaintiff, Animal Legal Defense Fund had standing to bring this action and that their interests fell within the “zone” of interests protected by the PPIA. However, the Court also held that Defendants, United States Department of Agriculture, did not act arbitrarily, capriciously, or contrary to law in denying the petition. Accordingly, the Court Granted the Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment, and Denied Plaintiffs' Motion for Summary Judgment. |
Case | |
| Romero v. Bexar County | 993 F.Supp.2d 658 (W.D. Tex. 2014) | Several reports to the police were made that a man had threatened several individuals with a firearm. In responding to the calls, the police identified the plaintiff pet owner as the allegedly armed man. Officers then proceeded to the plaintiff’s home and acknowledged that they saw a “Beware of Dogs” sign, but still entered the fenced-in premises. Upon entering the yard, four dogs approached and one of the officers shot and killed one of the dogs. The plaintiff brought suit against the officer and municipality and alleged violations of his Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment rights. In evaluating the officer’s claim of qualified immunity, the court held that the officer’s actions were objectively reasonable, considering he had reason to believe the plaintiff may be armed and dangerous and claimed “several large dogs ran out aggressively charging, barking and growling.” The officer’s relation of events was backed up by his fellow officer on the scene. | Case | |
| IA - Ordinances - 331.381. Duties relating to services | I. C. A. § 331.381 | IA ST § 331.381 | This Iowa statute states that the county board shall provide for the seizure, impoundment, and disposition of dogs in accordance with chapter 351. | Statute |
| Liberty Humane Soc., Inc. v. Jacobs | Not Reported in A.2d, 2008 WL 2491961 (N.J.Super.A.D.) | This case concerns the authority of the Department of Health to revoke certifications of animal control officers who willfully contravened the state law on impounding dogs. The court found that “[s] ince the Department acknowledged that it is charged with revoking certifications of animal control off icers when those officers pose ‘ a threat to the health and safety’ of the community, it should follow that allegations of officers willfully and illegally taking a dog from its owner and falsifying records to claim it a stray so as to expose it to adoption by another or euthanasia calls for the Department to take action. ” It would be both arbitrary and capricious for the Department to ignore its duty to determine if revocation of certification is required. | Case | |
| AR - Sherwood - Breed - Pit Bull Ordinance No. 1776 | SHERWOOD, AR., CITY ORDINANCE No. 1776 (2008) |
In Sherwood, Arkansas, it is unlawful to keep, harbor, own or possess any pit bull dog, with the exception for those who are registered and reside in an area that is annexed into corporate city limits. However, if a pit bull is aggressive towards people or other dogs, the dog is not exempt from the ban. Registration requirements include: annual vaccinations, license, microchips, photo ID, insurance, proper confinement, 'Beware of Dog' signs, and mandatory disclosures. Any dog found to be the subject of a violation shall be subject to immediate seizure and impoundment or may be euthanized. The owner may be fined up to $1,000 and imprisoned for up to 30 days.
|
Local Ordinance |