Results
| Title | Citation | Alternate Citation | Agency Citation | Summary | Type |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| US - Pets and Housing - Pet Ownership for the Elderly and Persons With Disabilities | 2008 WL 4690497 (F.R.) | [Docket No. FR-5127-F-02] |
This final rule amends HUD's regulations governing the requirements for pet ownership in HUD-assisted public housing and multifamily housing projects for the elderly and persons with disabilities. Specifically, this final rule conforms these pet ownership requirements to the requirements for animals assisting persons with disabilities in HUD's public housing programs, other than housing projects for the elderly or persons with disabilities. |
Administrative | |
| Dubner v.City and County of San Francisco | 266 F.3d 959 |
Photographer brought § 1983 claim and several state law claims against city, police officers, and chief of police alleging unlawful arrest. The Court of Appeals, D.W. Nelson, Circuit Judge, held that: (1) photographer established prima facie case of her unlawful arrest by police officers at animal rights demonstration; (2) police lacked probable to cause to arrest photographer for trespassing under California law; (3) police lacked probable cause to arrest photographer under California's unlawful assembly statute; and (4) police chief could be held liable in his individual capacity. |
Case | ||
| SD - Vehicle - 41-1-5.7. Disposition of deer and antelope killed by motor vehicle | S D C L § 41-1-5.7 | SD ST § 41-1-5.7 | This South Dakota statute states that if any deer or antelope is killed by a motor vehicle on a public highway, the person who desires to possess that animal shall notify a conservation officer. The conservation officer may give a dated and written authorization allowing possession of the animal at no fee. However, no part of an animal so obtained may be sold, bartered, or traded. | Statute | |
| RI - Dogs at campgrounds, beaches - § 42-17.1-45. No prohibition on pets | Gen. Laws, 1956, § 42-17.1-45 | RI ST § 42-17.1-45 | This law provides that the Department of Environmental Management shall not promulgate or enforce any rule or regulation that would prohibit a pet dog or cat from accompanying its owner or caretaker at any state owned campground. | Statute | |
| NM - Impound - Chapter 77. Animals and Livestock. | NMSA 1978, § 77-1-17 | NM ST § 77-1-17 | This New Mexico statute provides that the owner or operator of a veterinary clinic or hospital, a doctor of veterinary medicine, a kennel, grooming parlor or other animal care facility is not liable for disposing of abandoned animals after proper notice has been sent to the owner of record. | Statute | |
| In re: DAVID M. ZIMMERMAN | 57 Agric. Dec. 1038 (1998) | 1998 WL 799196 (U.S.D.A.) | Ongoing pattern of violations establishes "history of previous violations" for purposes of 7 USCS § 2149(b), and it is appropriate to view evidence as establishing prior violations in determining appropriate level of civil penalty. | Case | |
| ME - Domestic Violence- Title 19-A. Domestic Relations. | 19-A M. R. S. A. § 4108 - 4110 (formerly 19-A M.R.S.A. §§ 4006, 4007) | ME ST T. 19-A §§ 4108 - 4110 (formerly ME ST T. 19-A §§ 4006, 4007) | This Maine law concerning personal protection orders in cases of abuse was amended in March of 2006 to include companion animals in protection orders. The new language specifies that a court may enter an order directing the care, custody or control of any animal owned, possessed, leased, kept or held by either party or a minor child residing in the household. In 2013, the statute was amended to allow the court to enter an order directing the defendant to refrain from injuring or threatening to injure any animal owned, possessed, leased, kept or held by either party or a minor child residing in the household. | Statute | |
| Fiori v. Conway Org. | 746 N.Y.S.2d 747 (2001) | 192 Misc.2d 408, 2001 N.Y. Slip Op. 21577 |
In this New York case, a customer brought a negligence action against the owner of a retail store after she was allegedly attacked by a stray cat while shopping at store. The owner of the store moved for summary judgment. The Civil Court of the City of New York, Bronx County, held that a genuine issue of material fact existed as to whether the presence of a stray or feral cat in a retail store constituted a particular danger for unassuming visitors and/or customers whose presence on premises was foreseeable precluded summary judgment. |
Case | |
| US - Wildlife - Disposal of Forfeited or Abandoned Property | 1981 WL 150053 (F.R.) |
The Service proposes regulations to dispose of property forfeited or abandoned to the United States under the provisions of 50 CFR Part 12. This property, which includes wildlife, plants, vehicles, vessels, aircraft, cargo, guns, nets, traps, and other equipment, would be separated into two types for disposal. All property, except wildlife and plants, would be disposed of under existing Service procedures, which are based on current Federal Property Management Regulations and Interior Property Management Regulations. Wildlife and plants, however, would be disposed of at the discretion of the Director by one of the following means: return to the wild, use by the Service or transfer to another government agency for official use, donation or loan, sale, or destruction. This action would enable the Service to insure that wildlife and plants are disposed of in accordance with the conservation aims of the statute under which they were obtained while establishing an orderly, cost efficient disposal procedure. This procedure is needed both to eliminate unnecessary expense and overcrowding at government storage facilities and to provide a uniform means of satisfying the variety of possible uses of wildlife and plants which are ready for disposal. |
Administrative | ||
| Salazar v. Kubic | 370 P.3d 342 (Col. Ct. App. Div. VI, 2015) | 2015 WL 5895438 (Col. Ct. App. Div. VI); 2015 COA 148 | At her facility, Defendant raised and housed more than 200 mice and rats to be sold as feed for snakes and other carnivores. Until March 2013, Defendant had a valid license issued under Pet Animal Care and Facilities Act (PACFA), but it expired. Upon the expiration Defendant kept operating her facility despite a cease and desist order from the Colorado Commissioner of Agriculture. The trial court granted the Commissioner's request for a permanent injunction to prevent Defendant from operating without the required PACFA license and from violating the cease and desist order. On appeal, the court rejected Defendant’s argument that her rodents were outside PACFA’s “pet animal” definition, despite the fact the mice and rats she sold were used as food, not household pets. Additionally, the court found rats and mice did not fit within the statutory exemptions for livestock or “any other animal designated by the Commissioner.” The court was also unpersuaded that Defendants rodents were “working animals” because there was no indication that she used them to perform any function that could be considered “work.” The district court’s decision was affirmed. | Case |