Results
| Title | Citation | Alternate Citation | Agency Citation | Summary | Type |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Com. v. Seyler | 929 A.2d 262 (Pa.Cmwlth., 2007) | 2007 WL 2033260 (Pa.Cmwlth.) |
This Pennsylvania case construes the term "owner" for purposes of the state's Dog and Rabies Laws. Gretta R. Seyler appeals from an order of the trial court, which found her guilty of two counts each of violating Dog Law and guilty of two counts of violating Section 8 of the Rabies Prevention and Control in Domestic Animals and Wildlife Act after a pit bull jumped out of a window of her home and attacked a neighbor. First, the court found that there was no question that Seyler was caring for the dogs at the time the incident occurred or was permitting them to remain “on or about” the premises occupied by her. Although Seyler argues that the record clearly indicates that the two dogs were owned by her adult sons, the court found that the argument is without much force, as no paperwork showing the sons' ownership of the dogs was introduced at the hearing. Further, the court observed that the plain and unambiguous intent of Sections 8 of the Rabies Act and 305 of the Dog Law is that dogs be vaccinated and confined at all times. Thus, if the person having the property interest in a dog does not perform that function, then the statutes clearly require one harboring or caring for the dog, here Seyler, to perform it. |
Case | |
| Center for Biological Diversity v. Salazar | Slip Copy, 2011 WL 6000497 (D.Ariz.) |
Plaintiffs filed action against Interior and FWS to set aside FWS's finding that the desert bald eagle does not qualify as a distinct population segment (“DPS”) entitled to protection under the Endangered Species Act (“ESA”). Plaintiff's motions for summary judgment was granted. The Court found that FWS' 12–month finding was based on the 2007 delisting rule, which failed to comport with the notice, comment, and consultation requirements of the ESA. The Court set aside the 12–month finding as an abuse of discretion.
|
Case | ||
| US - Air travel, service animals - Guidance Concerning the Carriage of Service Animals in Air Transportation Into the United Kingdom | 2007 WL 555627 (F.R.) | FR Doc. E7-3195 |
This notice publishes guidance concerning the carriage of service animals in air transportation from the United States (U.S.) to the United Kingdom (U.K.). These guidelines address the differences between U.K. laws regulating the transport of service animals on flights into the U.K. and U.S. law with respect to the carriage of service animals in air transportation. U.K. laws affecting the transport of service animals in air travel differ significantly from the requirements of the Air Carrier Access Act (ACAA), 49 U.S.C. 41705, and its implementing regulation in 14 CFR Part 382, resulting in uncertainty for carriers and persons with disabilities about the requirements that apply on flights into or transiting the U.K.
|
Administrative | |
| U.S. v. Oliver | 255 F.3d 588 (8th Cir. 2001) |
Despite delays in receiving eagle parts through the federal permit process, the court rules the BGEPA does not violate the Religious Freedom Restoration Act. There is nothing so peculiar about defendant's situation to allow a one-man exception. For further discussion on religious challenges to the BGEPA by Native Americans, see Detailed Discussion of Eagle Act . |
Case | ||
| VA - Vehicle - § 29.1-539. Keeping deer or bear struck by motor vehicle; | VA Code Ann. § 29.1-539 | VA ST § 29.1-539 | Any person driving a motor vehicle who collides with a deer or bear may, upon compliance with relevant provisions, keep the deer or bear for his or her own use. The person shall immediately report the accident to a conservation police officer or other law-enforcement officer. If the officer believes that the deer or bear was killed by the collision, he shall award the animal to the person claiming the deer or bear, and shall give the person a certificate to that effect. | Statute | |
| State v. Jacobs | Slip Copy (unpublished decision) 2015 WL 618098, 2015 Ohio App. LEXIS 4244 (Ct.App. 2015) | 2015 -Ohio- 4353 | The defendant, Michael Jacobs, was convicted of unlawful sexual conduct with a minor and corrupting another minor with drugs, receiving a prison sentence of four years. The victim testified with a “companion dog” at her feet. Among other assignments of error, Jacobs argued that he was denied his right to a fair trial because of the presence of the companion dog during the victim’s testimony. The child was under 15 at the time of the alleged abuse, but 17 years old when she testified. The Ohio appellate court concluded that the use of a companion dog in such a case was a matter of first impression in the state, though other comfort items, such as teddy bears had previously been used in similar situations in Ohio courts. To the defense’s objection that the witness was no longer under 15 at the time of her testimony, the appellate court stated that the defense had “failed to offer any authority to support the proposition that there is a certain age cut-off for the use of special procedures on behalf of alleged sexual abuse victims.” The court concluded that Ohio Evidence Rule 611(A), which provides that a trial court is to exercise “reasonable control over the mode and order of interrogating witnesses…” and to “protect witnesses from harassment or undue embarrassment,” was sufficiently flexible to allow the use of the dog during the trial. Having overruled all of Jacobs' assignments of error, the court affirmed the judgment of the Summit County Court of Common Pleas. | Case | |
| NM - Dog - Consolidated Dog Laws | NMSA 1978, § 3-18-3; § 77-1-1 - 20; § 77-1A-1 - 6; § 77-1B-1 - 12; § 25-1-15 | NM ST § 3-18-3; § 77-1-1 - 20; § 77-1A-1 - 6; § 77-1B-1 - 12; § 25-1-15 | These statutes comprise New Mexico's dog laws. Among the provisions include municipal powers to regulate dogs, vaccination requirements, and provisions related to dangerous dogs. | Statute | |
| In re: VOLPE VITO, INC., d/b/a FOUR BEARS WATER PARK AND RECREATION AREA | 56 Agric. Dec. 166 (1997) | 1997 WL 15684 (U.S.D.A.) | While corrections are to be encouraged and may be taken into account when determining sanction to be imposed, even immediate correction of violation does not operate to eliminate fact that violation occurred and does not provide basis for dismissal of alleged violation. | Case | |
| MD - Dangerous Animals - Part IV. Animal Control | MD Code, Health-General, § 18-217 - 222 | MD HEALTH GEN § 18-217 - 222 | This chapter of Maryland laws declares that it is in the public interest to ensure public health and safety by strictly regulating the possession, breeding, and importation of certain animals that pose risks to humans. Certain animals such as domestic dogs, cats, and ferrets; animal used for agricultural, scientific, or education purposes; and animals used for public exhibitions are excluded from the provisions of this section. Any person who imports, transports, sells, transfers, breeds, raises, keeps, or possesses any animal which is prohibited under regulations promulgated by the Secretary is guilty of a misdemeanor and on conviction is subject to a fine not exceeding $500, or imprisonment not exceeding 1 year, or both. | Statute | |
| People v. Rogers | 708 N.Y.S.2d 795 (N.Y. 2000) | 184 Misc.2d 419; N.Y. Slip Op. 20246 | Defendant was convicted following jury trial in the Criminal Court of the City of New York of abandonment of animals. On appeal, the Supreme Court, Appellate Term, held that the warrantless entry into pet shop was justified under emergency doctrine and sufficient evidence supported his convictions. | Case |