Results
| Title | Citation | Alternate Citation | Agency Citation | Summary | Type |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| US - Assistance animals, housing - Part 8. Nondiscrimination Based on Handicap | 24 C.F.R. § 8.1 to .6 | The purpose of this part is to effectuate section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as amended (29 U.S.C 794), to the end that no otherwise qualified individual with handicaps in the United States shall, solely by reason of his or her handicap, be excluded from the participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance from the Department of Housing and Urban Development. | Administrative | ||
| AL - Ordinances - Article 4. General Police Powers | Ala. Code 1975 § 11-47-110, 117, 118 | AL ST § 11-47-110, 117, 118 | This set of statutes authorizes all cities and towns to enact local ordinances to prevent dangerous, unwholesome, or offensive conditions and to abate public nuisances. | Statute | |
| Pete Mansour v. King County, a municipal corporation; King County Animal Control; King County Licensing and Regulatory Services | In this Washington case, Division One of the Washington Court of Appeals reversed a King County Animal Control decision declaring a dog vicious and ordering her removed from the county. This decision overrides the practice of a dog being presumed guilty until proven innocent in that county. The court found that for Mansour or any other pet owner to prove effectively present his or her case and rebut the evidence against him or her, due process requires that he or she be able to subpoena witnesses and present records. Mr. Mansour was prejudiced in his case because he was not allowed to do so and was not given sufficient notice for the hearing. | Pleading | |||
| Idaho Dairymen's Ass'n, Inc. v. Gooding County | 227 P.3d 907 (Idaho 2010) | 2010 WL 337939 (Idaho), 148 Idaho 653 (2010) |
After Gooding County adopted an ordinance regulating confined animal feeding operations (CAFOs), cattle ranching and dairy associations brought suit challenging the constitutionality and validity of provisions within the ordinance and seeking declaratory and injunctive relief. The district court entered summary judgment in favor of the county, and the associations appealed. The Idaho Supreme Court affirmed the district court's findings. |
Case | |
| UK - Research Animals - Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986 | 1986 CHAPTER 14 | An Act to regulate the use of live vertebrate animals in research. Before a test on animals is given permission to proceed various licenses are required. These include: a personal license for each person carrying out the procedure, a project license for the programme of work, and an establishment license for the place in which the work is carried out. Each project must undergo a harm/ benefit analysis. This considers the potential benefits for humankind, the environment or other animals, against the pain, suffering, distress or lasting harm which the experimental animals may experience. Licence holders who lawfully use animals under the Act are exempted from the provisions of the Animal Welfare Act 2006, the Animal Health and Welfare (Scotland) Act 2006, and the Welfare of Animals Act (Northern Ireland) 2011. Section 24 of the Act makes it an offence to disclose any information relating to a regulated animal experiment which has been, or is reasonably believed to have been, given in confidence. | Statute | ||
| Larsen v. McDonald | 212 N.W.2d 505 | 1973 Iowa Sup. LEXIS 1169 | In this case twelve neighbors brought a private nuisance claim against another neighbor for keeping numerous dogs in a residential area. Mr. and Mrs. McDonald rescued unwanted dogs by keeping them on their property; Ms. McDonald provided food and shelter and attempted to place the animals in new adoptive homes. At the time of trial there were 40 dogs on the property. The neighbors had called the police and complained of frequent barking and the smell of urine. The McDonalds argue that they had priority of location over the defendants. When they moved to the neighborhood in 1952 it had been sparsely settled. However, over the years the neighborhood had become residential, and while many of the neighbors also had dogs, none of them exceeded three dogs. Ultimately the court held that for the McDonalds to be operating a shelter or kennel style facility was inconsistent with the character of the neighborhood, and after reviewing the testimony, the evidence in this case was sufficient to show a normal person would find the situation was a nuisance. The court upheld the lower court’s injunction to limit the number of dogs that the McDonalds could keep. | Case | |
| IL - Police dog - Act 82. Police Dog Retirement Act | 510 I.L.C.S. 82/1 - 5 | IL ST CH 510 § 82/1 - 5 | The Police Dog Retirement Act, effective on January 1, 2017, states that a public service dog that is no longer fit for service shall be offered by the law enforcement agency to the officer or employee who had custody and control of the animal during its service. This includes a search and rescue dog, service dog, accelerant detection canine, or other dog that is in use by a county, municipal, or State law enforcement agency. If the officer or employee does not wish to keep the dog, the dog may be offered to another officer or employee in the agency, or to a non-profit organization or a no-kill animal shelter. | Statute | |
| Canada - Saskatchewan - Dangerous Dog Law | SS 2005, c M-36.1, 374-380 | This set of Saskatchewan, Canada laws comprises the Dangerous Dog laws. | Statute | ||
| OH - Lakewood - Breed - 506.03 PIT BULL DOGS OR CANARY DOGS | LAKEWOOD, OH., ORDINANCES § 506.03 (2008) |
No person may keep, harbor or own pit bull dogs or canary dogs in Lakewood, Ohio, with exceptions for dogs in the city on the effective date. A dog may be allowed to stay provided it has a microchip for identification, has been sterilized, the owner has liability insurance of $100,000, and the dog is properly confined or secured. Failure to comply could result in the removal or impoundment of the dog. The owner may also be charged with a misdemeanor. |
Local Ordinance | ||
| Gurtek v. Chisago County | 1988 WL 81554 (Minn.App., 1988) (unpublished) |
Appellants sought review of a denial of a special-use permit to build a large campground adjacent to a bald eagle nesting site. They contended that the denial by the county board was arbitrary and capricious. The court held that the denial was reasonable where the county proffered two legally valid reasons for denying the permit: the danger to the sensitive nesting eagle population and the detrimental effect the increased human activity would have on the unspoiled nature of the property. |
Case |