Results
| Title | Citation | Alternate Citation | Agency Citation | Summary | Type |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| MD - Swap Meets - § 19-105. Sales or other transfers of dogs or cats at public places | MD Code, Business Regulation, § 19-105 | MD BUS REG § 19-105 | This 2016 law states that a person may not offer for sale, sell, offer to transfer, transfer, barter, trade, or auction a dog or cat at any public place, including a street, parking lot, carnival, swap meet, or fair, among others. The act does not apply to an animal welfare organization or animal control unit displaying dogs or cats for adoption or a prearranged sale of a dog by a dog breeder if not a recurring event. Violation results in a $500 civil penalty for a first violation, a $1,000 civil penalty for a second violation, and a civil penalty for a $1,500 for a third or subsequent violation. | Statute | |
| MN - Veterinary - Chapter 156. Veterinarians. Board of Veterinary Medicine. | M.S.A. § 156.001 - 20 | MN ST § 156.001 - 20 | These are the state's veterinary practice laws. Among the provisions include licensing requirements, laws concerning the state veterinary board, veterinary records laws, and the laws governing disciplinary actions for impaired or incompetent practitioners. | Statute | |
| HI - Wildlife - Chapter 183D. Wildlife. | H R S § 183D-1 - 66 | HI ST § 183D-1 - § 183D-66 | These statutes comprise Hawaii's wildlife provisions. | Statute | |
| Quave v. Bardwell | 449 So.2d 81 (La.App. 1 Cir.,1984) |
Plaintiff-appellee, Debbie Quave, filed this suit against defendant-appellant, Curtis Bardwell, seeking damages for the deliberate and unjustified killing of her german shepherd dog, Kilo Bandito. The court upheld an award of $2,650, finding that the assessment of damages for plaintiff’s dog was proper since they were based on the value paid, stud fees, medical care, loss of income, and replacement costs. |
Case | ||
| IA - Breeders - Chapter 67 Animal Welfare | Iowa Admin. Code 21-67.1(162) - 17 | IA ADC 21-67.1 to 17 | The following Iowa regulations provide provisions that pet stores, kennels, pounds, and other animal housing facilities must follow in order to handle, transport, and care for animals. These regulations provide specific instructions for dog day cares and for breeding greyhound dogs. | Administrative | |
| Staff is conducting a procedure on a night monkey placed on a dirty table | Slideshow Images | ||||
| Robinson v. Pezzat | 818 F.3d 1 (D.C. Cir. 2016) | 2016 WL 1274044 (D.C. Cir. Apr. 1, 2016) | Plaintiff filed suit against two police officers and the District of Columbia after the officers shot and killed her dog while executing a warrant to search her home. She brought a § 1983 claim, alleging that the officers seized her property in violation of the Fourth Amendment. The Court of Appeals reversed the District Court’s ruling for summary judgment, holding that a jury could find in favor of the plaintiff based on her witness testimony that the dog was lying down when it was first shot. Additionally, the court maintained summary judgment for the second police officer, McLeod, who shot and killed the dog after it bit Officer Pezzat and charged forward. | Case | |
| MA - Exotic pet, breeding - Chapter 131. Inland Fisheries and Game and Other Natural Resources. | M.G.L.A. 131 § 23 | MA ST 131 § 23 | Massachusetts bans private possession of exotic pets, and requires licenses for those who deal and propagate wild species for other reasons. The Massachusetts director of the Division of Fisheries and Wildlife also issues a list of exempted species for which no permit is needed. | Statute | |
| DE - Ordinances - Local ordinances (dogs) | 7 Del.C. § 1740 - Repealed by 77 Laws 2010, ch. 428, § 5, eff. July 1, 2010 | DE ST TI 7 § 1740 | [Repealed in 20210]. This Delaware statutes provides that nothing shall prevent a local municipality from enacting measures or a program for the control of dangerous or potentially dangerous dogs. | Statute | |
| GALBREATH v. THE STATE | 213 Ga. App. 80 (1994) |
The police found marijuana seedlings and plants in various stages of growth around the homes of defendant and co-defendant. The court upheld the trial court's determination that the items were admissible within the "plain view" exception to the requirement of a search warrant. The court concluded that the police were not trespassers when they walked around to the back of co-defendant's house to determine whether anyone was home after receiving no response at the front door. |
Case |