|WA - Yakima - Breed - Chapter 6.18 - Pit Bull Dogs||Chapter 6.18||
This Yakima, Washington ordinance makes it unlawful to keep, or harbor, own or in any way possess a pit bull dog within the city of Yakima. Violation of this section is a gross misdemeanor. This chapter does not apply to pit bull dogs which: 1) do not reside in the city of Yakima, 2) are brought into the city for the purposes of participating in a dog show or canine sporting event for which the owner is able to show proof of entry, and 3) do not remain in the city of Yakima for a period exceeding ninety-six consecutive hours.
|Wade v. Rich||618 N.E.2d 1314 (Ill.App. 5 Dist.,1993)||249 Ill.App.3d 581 (Ill.App. 5 Dist.,1993)||
Plaintiff sued dog owners for injuries from a dog attack. The jury ruled in favor of plaintiff for medical expenses, and plaintiff sought a new trial as to damages only. The court held that a new trial on damages was appropriate because the jury's failure to award damages for pain and suffering was against the manifest weight of evidence as defendant's liability was established by the viciousness of the dog repeatedly biting plaintiff about the head and face, which was out of proportion to the unintentional act of plaintiff falling onto the sleeping dog. Unintentional or accidental acts can
|Wales - Collars, electronic - The Animal Welfare (Electronic Collars) (Wales) Regulations 2010||2010 No. 943 (W.97)||Regulations prohibiting the use of electronic collars on dogs and cats in Wales.||Statute|
|Wales - Dogs - The Animal Welfare (Breeding of Dogs) (Wales) Regulations 2014||2014 No. 3266 (W. 333)||Regulations to license persons breeding dogs in Wales.||Statute|
|Wales - Dogs - The Microchipping of Dogs (Wales) Regulations 2015||2015 No. 1990 (W. 300)||Regulations providing for the compulsory microchipping of dogs and the recording of each dog’s identity and its keeper’s contact details on a database.||Statute|
|Wales - Fur, mink - The Mink Keeping (Prohibition) (Wales) Order 2012||2012 No. (W. )||An Order imposing an absolute prohibition upon the keeping of mink in Wales.||Statute|
|Walker-Serrano ex rel. Walker v. Leonard||325 F.3d 412 (C.A.3 (Pa.),2003)||175 Ed. Law Rep. 93||
Public school student circulated a petition during class and recess that opposed a school field trip to the circus. School officials prevented her from circulating the petition, and she complained of a violation of her First Amendment right to free speech. The Court of Appeals affirmed summary judgment for the school, holding that the student's rights had not been violated because a school may regulate the times and circumstances a petition may be circulated when it interferes with educational goals or the rights of other students.
|Walking Search Warrants: Canine Forensics and Police Culture after Florida v. Harris||John J. Ensminger and L.E. Papet||10 J. Animal & Nat. Resource L. 1||The 1983 Supreme Court case of U.S. v. Place set initial parameters to tell police how and when dogs could be used at airports and in a number of other environments. Recently, narcotics detection dogs have come to be considered “walking search warrants” by their human counterparts. Particularly since the United States Supreme Court decided Florida v. Harris in 2013, such attitudes in law enforcement have been reinforced as to the use of such dogs in public places. This article explores the interaction of canine forensics and police culture, particularly focusing on the Supreme Court’s decision in Harris.||Article|
|Wall v. City of Brookfield||406 F.3d 458 (7th Cir. 2005)||2005 WL 1022967 (7th Cir.)||
A dog that was constantly in violation of local leash ordinances was held as a stray by the town. The owner of the dog brought a section 1983 action claiming deprivation of the dog's companionship without due process and the trial court held in favor of the town. The Court of Appeals affirmed reasoning that only a post-deprivation hearing was necessary under the statute (which defendant could have received had she filed a petition with the court).
|Wallen v. City of Mobile||--- So.3d ----, 2018 WL 3803749 (Ala. Crim. App. Aug. 10, 2018)||Wallen appeals her convictions for six counts of violating Mobile, Alabama's public nuisance ordinances. The nuisance convictions stem from an anonymous complaint about multiple barking dogs at Wallen's property. After receiving the tip in March of 2016, an animal control officer drove to the residence, parked across the street, and, as he sat in his car, heard dogs bark continuously for approximately ten minutes. That same day, a local realtor went to house that was for sale behind Wallen's property and heard an "overwhelming" noise of dogs barking continuously for 30-45 minutes. For almost a year, officers received complaints about noise coming from Wallen's house. In May of 2017, Wallen entered a plea of not guilty for multiple charges of violating the public nuisance ordinance in Mobile Circuit Court. She also filed a motion to dismiss, arguing that the Mobile City Code was unconstitutionally vague. Her motion was later denied, and a jury trial was held where Wallen was found guilty of six counts of violating Mobile's public-nuisance ordinance. On appeal, Wallen first argues that the public nuisance ordinance is unconstitutionally overbroad because it regulates without reference to time, place, and manner. However, the court found that Wallen did not establish how the overbreadth doctrine applied to her case and how the ordinance was unconstitutional. As to her next vagueness challenge, Wallen contended that the ordinance had no objective standards to determine whether a dog's barking is disturbing or unreasonable. This court disagreed, finding the statute defines what are "disturbing noises" (which specifically states barking), and other courts previously established that the term "habit" in a dog-barking statute is not vague. Finally, the found that Wallen's last general argument, that the code is unconstitutional as applied to her, did not satisfy court rules with respect to issues presented and support with authority on appeal. The judgment of the lower court was affirmed.||Case|