Results
Displaying 71 - 80 of 6637
| Title | Citation | Alternate Citation | Agency Citation | Summary | Type |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Test Map | Other jurisdictions can be added here in the summary or ... | State map | |||
| Susan, Russell and Mary Phillips v. San Luis Obispo County Department of Animal Regulation | In this petition for a rehearing, respondents argued that the appellate court's decision (Phillips v. Department, 183 Cal.App.3d 372 (1986)) misstates crucial facts concerning the operation of the subject ordinance; that hearings required under the Atascadero ordinances apply to all dogs, not just strays; and that the appellate court may have been misled in its decision to conclude that no notice had been required. | Pleading | |||
| US - Grazing - Taylor Grazing Act | 43 USC 315 - 315r | Statute empowers Secretary of the Interior to establish and oversee grazing districts on federal land via a system of permits. | Statute | ||
| AR - Domestic Violence - Chapter 15. Domestic Abuse | ACA §§ 9-15-205 and 9-15-401 to 407 | AR ST §§ 9-15-205 and 9-15-401 to 407 | Upon a finding of domestic abuse, a court may "[d]irect the care, custody, or control of any pet. owned, possessed, leased, kept, or held by either party residing in the household" in an order for protection filed by a petitioner. Arkansas also defines emotional abuse to include harming a spouse's pet in its Spousal Safety Plan Act; emotional abuse, if committed by a spouse against their spouse, also constitutes spousal abuse. | Statute | |
| Kuba v. 1-A Agr. Ass'n | 387 F.3d 850 (9th Cir., 2004) | 34 Envtl. L. Rep. 20, 119 (2004) |
Activist sued a state-created agricultural association under 42 USC § 1983 to challenge a rule that limited demonstrations to “free expression zones” outside a state-owned performance facility. The Court of Appeals held that the association was not entitled to Eleventh Amendment immunity. It held that the parking lots and walkways were public fora, and thus time, place and manner restrictions on speech had to be content-neutral and narrowly tailored to serve an important government interest. The Court held that the state did not have a significant interest in restricting protestors to these zones. The rule was not narrowly tailored enough to promote the association's interest in preventing traffic congestion, and restricted more speech than was necessary. Therefore, the rule unduly infringed free speech on its face. |
Case | |
| Ley 2.786 | Ley 2.786 | Ley Sarmiento was the first law in South America enacted for the protection of animals. This criminal law prohibited animal cruelty at the national level and imposed on the police the duty to enforce laws protecting animals in cooperation with the Argentinian Society for the Protection of Animals. It imposed fines instead of prison time. The Sarmiento law paved the way for the Peron law (ley 14.346) that was enacted in 1954, which is valid to this day. | Statute | ||
| Nuzzaci v. Nuzzaci | 1995 WL 783006 (Del. Fam. Ct. Apr. 19, 1995) (unpublished opinion). | The court refused to sign a stipulation and order (prepared by the parties and signed by each of them and their attorneys) concerning visitation of the divorcing couple’s dog. The court held that a court can only award dog in its entirety to one party or the other. The court advised the couple to come to their own private agreement instead, reasoning that the court has no jurisdiction in this matter and further no way to side with one party or the other in the event of a future dispute. | Case | ||
| Turner v. Ferguson | 432 F. Supp. 3d 876 (E.D. Wis. 2020) | On March 5, 2017 Lori turner was attacked by her neighbor’s (“Arndt”) dog which required her to receive 11 staples to close the wound on her scalp. She also suffered bites on her shoulder and wrist that would later require surgery. Pursuant to local regulations, the neighbor’s dog was quarantined for a ten-day period. Lori mentioned to officers that the City of Gelndale had recently enacted an ordinance that allowed for an officer to declare a dog vicious which then required the owner of the dog to adhere to certain requirements like securing the dog in a kennel when it was outdoors and maintaining liability insurance for dog bites. On March 14, 2017, Officer Ruppel issued a citation to Ardnt under a Glendale ordinance for damage caused by dogs, however, he did not declare the dog vicious under the vicious-dog ordinance. Officer Ruppel reasoned during deposition that he chose not to do so because he considered Ardnt grabbing the dog by the neck and Lori walking up and petting the dog (prior to Ardnt’s action) provocation. Lori filed suit against the officers she interacted with over the course of the next year claiming that the officers denied her equal protection of the law by refusing to declare Arndt’s dog vicious and by failing to protect her from loose dogs in the neighborhood. Lori had repeatedly contacted the police department over the course of a year about how she did not like the outcome of her dog bite case and about loose dogs in the neighborhood. Lori specifically alleged that the officers treated her with animus. The Court ultimately found that the evidence in the record did not support a class-of-one equal protection claim. Officer Ruppel’s decision to not declare Ardnt’s dog vicious was supported by a rational basis. Additionally, no evidence existed that suggested that the Glendale police department intentionally and irrationally treated Lori’s complaints about loose dogs in the neighborhood differently than it treated similar complaints by other citizens. The Defendant’s motion for summary judgment was granted. | Case | ||
| AL - Importation, wildlife - 220-2-.26. Restrictions On Possession, Sale, Importation | AL ADC 220-2-.26 | AL ADC 220-2-.26 | This Alabama regulation provides that no person, firm, corporation, partnership, or association shall possess, sell, offer for sale, import, or bring into the state any of the listed species including piranha, mongoose, non-native coyote, fox, black bear, and others. It is also unlawful for any person to have in possession any live, protected wild bird or wild animal or live embryo, eggs, or sperm of these protected wild birds or animals. | Administrative | |
| Baker v. Middleton (unpublished opinion) | No. 29D05-0605-SC-1055 (Ind. Super. Ct. Mar. 2, 2007) | unpublished opinion | In Baker , the defendant fed and watered four cats that lived in the neighborhood. These cats damaged the plaintiff’s home, destroying insulation, a vapor barrier, and duct work. The cats also urinated and defecated in the crawl space of the home. In the Superior Court, the plaintiff argued that a town ordinance and a county ordinance independently imposed a duty on the defendant to control the cats and prevent them from damaging the plaintiff's property. The court found, however, that since the defendant was participating in a Trap Neuter and Release program, the county ordinance could not serve as a basis for finding that the defendant was negligent in caring for the feral cats. The court went on to reject two alternative theories of negligence also proffered by the plaintiff. The plaintiff had therfore failed to establish that the defendant was negligent in her actions and judgment was entered in favor of the defendant. | Case |