Results
| Title | Citation | Alternate Citation | Summary | Type |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| AL - Irondale - Breed - Sec. 3-90 - Pit Bulls | IRONDALE, AL., CODE OF ORDINANCES, § 3-90, 3-91 |
In Irondale, Alabama, it is unlawful to keep, harbor, own or possess any pit bull dog. However, pit bull dogs registered on the date of publication may be kept within the city subject to certain requirements. These requirements include proper confinement, the use of a leash and muzzle, the posting of “Beware of Dog” signs, the taking of identification photographs, and the maintenance of liability insurance ($50,000). Failure to comply may result in the seizure of the dog, a fine up to $500 and/or imprisonment up to 30 days. The city also bans Presa Canario dogs.
|
Local Ordinance | |
| Texas Attorney General Opinion No. JC-0552 | 2002 Tex. Atty. Gen. Op. JC-0552 |
Texas Attorney General Opinion clarifying a new provision in Chapter 822 of the Texas Health & Safety Code that requires all dangerous wild animals to be registered in the county in which they're located. Otherwise, possession of these animals is unlawful. |
Case | |
| England - Farming - The Use of Closed Circuit Television in Slaughterhouses (England) Regulations 2018 | 2018 No. 556 | These Regulations introduce requirements on operators of slaughterhouses in England to install and operate a closed circuit television (CCTV) system in all areas where live animals are present. CCTV footage and associated data must be retained for a period of 90 days. Inspectors are given powers to require compliance with these Regulations. This includes powers of inspection and seizure where an inspector has entered premises for the purposes of executing and enforcing the 2015 Welfare of Animals at the Time of Killing (England) Regulations, and powers to issue enforcement notices. | Statute | |
| Sentencia T-095, 2016 | Sentencia T-095/16 | In this decision, the court drew a line between the concept of animal welfare and the concept of animal rights. The court continues to see animal protection from a moral perspective when it states animals do not necessarily have rights, even though they should be treated with respect and should not be abused. The Plaintiff brought an action of ‘tutela’ (Constitutional mechanism that is preferential and summary, created for the sole purpose of protection of fundamental rights) against ‘la Personería Local of Fontibón’, the local Mayor’s office of Fontibon, the District Secretary of Health, the Zoonosis Center and the Distril Secretary of the environment of Bogota. The Plaintiff argued that these governmental entities had violated his fundamental right to petition and the right to animal welfare of twenty five dogs, when the authorities ordered the confiscation the canines that were located in the District Ecological Park of the Wetland of Capellanía and who were cared for by volunteers. The Plaintiff argued that the Defendants did not respond to his request to provide funds to build a shelter and provide food and veterinary assistance of the dogs or funds to relocate them. The Plaintiff sought a response from governmental authorities on the petition and to provide the funds to save the animals, thereby avoiding the Zoonosis Center to assume their care, who would euthanize the sick animals that were not adopted after five days of being up for adoption. The lower court denied the protection of the fundamental right to petition, as it found that the authorities responded to the petition of the Plaintiff in a clear and timely matter by denying the request to fund the Plaintiff to relocate the dogs or build a shelter for them. In regards to the right to animal welfare, the lower court considered it was a legal rather than a constitutional issue, therefore the action of ‘tutela’ was not the appropriate mechanism as its purpose is to guarantee the protection of fundamental rights. The court held that there was a constitutional duty of animal protection that derives from the duty to protect the environment. However, this duty to guarantee the well-being of animals as sentient beings is not absolute and may be subject to exceptions. The court determines that the mandate to protect the environment, which includes sentient beings, does not translate into a right to animal welfare, and for that reason such duty is not enforceable through an action of tutela. The duty to protect animals presumes an obligation to care and prohibits maltreatment and cruelty against animals, unless these actions come from one of the limits stipulated in the constitution. The court affirmed the lower court decision to deny the protection to the right to petition and declared the inadmissibility of the action of tutela for the protection of animal welfare. | Case | |
| Rosenfeld v. Zoning Bd. of Appeals of Mendon | 940 N.E.2d 891 (Ma. App., 2011) | 78 Mass.App.Ct. 677 (2011); 2011 WL 242734 (Ma. App., 2011) |
A zoning board granted landowner’s application for a special permit, and neighbor property owners appealed. The Appeals Court of Massachusetts held that defendant’s proposed use of land for horse stables fit within the agricultural use exception of the zoning ordinance and by-laws, and that plaintiffs had standing to enforce a deed restriction on defendant’s property. |
Case |
| In re: DAVID M. ZIMMERMAN | 56 Agric. Dec. 433 (1997) | 1997 WL 327152 (U.S.D.A.) | Purpose of sanctions is to deter respondent, as well as others, from committing same or similar violations. | Case |
| PA - Veterinary - Chapter 14A. Veterinary Medicine Practice. | 63 P.S. § 485.1 - 35 | PA ST 63 P.S. § 485.1 - 35 | 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 |
| Richard v. Hoban | 1970CarswellNB126 | 3 N.B.R. (2d) 81, 16 D.L.R. (3d) 679 |
The child plaintiff was attacked and bitten by a chained German Shepherd after she put her arm around the dog's neck to hug or play with it; she sustained scarring lacerations of her head, cheek and eyelid that required 5 days' hospitalization after plastic surgery. The trial judge earlier held that because the dog, had two months previously, bitten a young boy on the face and ear in an unprovoked attack, the owner had prior knowledge of the dog's propensity to bite children, yet he kept the dog regardless. The owner was thus strictly liable under the doctrine of scienter. The Court of Appeal reversed this holding, with two judges finding that the boy in the earlier attack had been injured accidentally by the dog's dew-claw, rather than being bitten, so that there was insufficient notice to the dog's owner of any vicious propensity; thus he was not strictly liable in scienter. |
Case |
| Boling v. Parrett | 536 P.2d 1272 (Or. 1975) | 21 Or.App. 823 (Or. 1975) |
This is an appeal from an action claiming conversion when police officers took animals into protective custody. Where police officers acted in good faith and upon probable cause when a citation was issued to an animal owner for cruelty to animals by neglect, then took the animals into protective custody and transported them to an animal shelter, there was no conversion. |
Case |
| Ranwez v. Roberts | 601 S.E.2d 449 (Ga. 2004) | 268 Ga.App. 80 (Ga. 2004) |
Plaintiff brought claims against her tenant neighbor and the property owner after she was viciously attacked by her tenant neighbor's four pit bulls. The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of the property owner. The Court of Appeals affirmed the decision holding the property owner was an out-of -possession landlord. |
Case |