Results
Displaying 6561 - 6570 of 6638
| Title | Citation | Alternate Citation | Summary | Type |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| PH - Animal Welfare - Memorandum Issued on the Animal Welfare Act | Memorandum Circular - NO. 2003-153 (on the AWA) |
This Memorandum concerns Republic Act No. 8485, other wise known as the Animal Welfare Act of 1998, passed to protect and promote the welfare of all animals in the Philippines. The Memorandum was issued because, despite the passage of the Act, reports reaching the Committee on Animal Welfare indicate the continued cruelty to animals, especially dogs, in the country today. |
Statute | |
| Manzke v. Jefferson County | Slip Copy, 2018 WL 5095678 (W.D. Wis. Aug. 21, 2018) | 58 NDLR P 49 (W.D. Wis. Aug. 21, 2018) | Joshua Pernat and Sara Manzke owned property that had four miniature goats and two geese on it. Sara (plaintiff) applied for a zoning variance and a conditional use permit to accommodate her emotional support animals. Jefferson County and the Town of Ixonia denied her applications. Sara then brought forth claims under the Fair Housing Amendments Act and Wisconsin’s Open Housing Act that she was discriminated against by Jefferson County and the Town of Ixonia. Joshua and Sara also sought a notice of removal of a small claims action brought forth by Jefferson County seeking monetary sanctions for the alleged violations of the zoning variance. Jefferson County argued that the plaintiff’s federal reasonable accommodation claim was not ripe because the County never made a final decision with respect to Sara’s applications for a variance and conditional use permit. When the Town of Ixonia voted to recommend that Jefferson County deny the plaintiff’s variance application, the plaintiff withdrew her applications from consideration. Sara argued that the town’s denial “foretold a denial by the County,” and any further appeal to the County would have been fruitless. The Court did not agree. The County had no obligation to follow the town’s recommendation. The Court dismissed plaintiff’s Fair Housing Amendments Act claim for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and accordingly dismissed plaintiff’s state law claim without prejudice. Since Sara was unable to state a federal claim, the Court also held that Sara and Joshua could not remove the small claim by Jefferson County to federal court. | Case |
| Phillips v. San Luis Obispo County Dept. |
These are detailed briefs on why an administrative hearing is required before a "dangerous" dog is euthanized. |
Pleading | ||
| Scotland - Animal Welfare - 2003 Proposal | 2003 Proposal, Protection of Animals (Scotland) Act 1912 | For historical purposes only. Law has been repealed and/or replaced. The Scottish Executive (SE) issued a consultation paper on 21st March 2003 on proposals to amend the Protection of Animals (Scotland) Act 1912. These proposals were aimed at addressing the specific problem of the lack of statutory powers available to local authorities to remove neglected farm livestock, which are suffering or at risk of suffering, to a place of safely. The responses from a number of organisations to that paper have shown a clear desire for a much wider reform of our existing animal welfare legislation. Ministers now wish to consider expanding the proposed amendment to the Protection of Animals (Scotland) Act 1912 and to introduce wider legislation aimed at consolidating and updating much of the existing animal welfare legislation in Scotland. The purpose of any new legislation will be to prevent cruelty to any animal and to set out the obligations of people to promote the welfare of all animals (including domestic pets) for which they are either permanently or temporarily responsible. This will include owning, managing, or in any way keeping any animal, including buying, selling and transporting. | Statute | |
| KS - Arkansas City - Breed - Pit Bull Ordinance | ARKANSAS CITY, KS., MUNICIPAL CODE §§ 6.08.061 - 6.08.062 (1992) |
In Arkansas City, Kansas, it is unlawful to possess an American Staffordshire Terrier, a/k/a American Pit Bull Terrier or Pit Bull, or a Presa Canario, a/k/a Canary Dog. Under these ordinances, pit bulls are deemed to be vicious and may be euthanized by court order or by failure of an owner or harborer to pay impoundment fees. Additionally, a person may be fined up to $500.00 and/or may be jailed for up to 6 months for violating these ordinances. |
Local Ordinance | |
| Lesher v. Reed | 12 F.3d 148 (8th Cir. 1994) |
Seizure of pet dog violated Fourth Amendment where police acted unreasonably in going to canine police officer's house to seize the dog after the dog bit a child. |
Case | |
| Vermont Law 1854-1855: Cruelty to Animals | 1854 Vt. Acts & Resolves 51.1 | This document contains Vermont's anti-cruelty law from 1854. | Statute | |
| LA - Initiatives - Ballot Issue 1 (right to hunt) | Ballot Issue 1 (2004) | This Louisiana ballot measure amended the state constitution after it was resoundingly approved in November of 2004 (by 81% of voters). The measure was initiated by the state legislature in Senate Bill 2 and was sent to the electors of the state for a vote. The measure on the official ballot stated that citizens were to vote FOR or AGAINST to amend the Constitution of Louisiana with the following proposition: "To guarantee the right of every citizen to hunt, fish and trap, subject to regulation, restriction, or prohibition as provided by law. (Adds Article I, 14 Section 27)." | Statute | |
| U.S. v. Okelberry | 112 F. Supp. 2d 1246 (D. Utah 2000) |
Defense counsel not deemed ineffective for failing to advise defendant that a conviction under the BGEPA could result in loss of grazing rights. |
Case | |
| WV - Dangerous - § 19-20-21. License fee for keeping vicious or dangerous dog. | W. Va. Code, § 19-20-9a; § 19-20-20 - 21 | WV ST § 19-20-9a; § 19-20-20 to 21 | These West Virginia statutes provide that any person who owns or harbors any dog, cat or other domesticated animal, whether licensed or unlicensed, which bites any person, shall confine and quarantine the animal for a period of ten days for rabies observation. The state apparently has a prohibition against owning a dangerous dog, such that no person shall own, keep or harbor any dog known by him to be vicious, dangerous, or in the habit of biting or attacking other persons, whether or not such dog wears a tag or muzzle. However, another section provides that any person who keeps a dog which is generally considered to be vicious, for the purpose of protection, shall acquire a special license therefor from the county assessor and then keep the dog restrained/enclosed. | Statute |