Results
Displaying 81 - 90 of 6637
| Title | Citation | Alternate Citation | Agency Citation | Summary | Type |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Schor v. N. Braddock Borough | 801 F. Supp. 2d 369 (W.D. Pa. 2011) | Sadie, a six (6) year old pit bull and family pet was shot and killed by the Defendant Officer Wittlinger. The Plaintiff, Sadie’s owner, filed a twelve count complaint alleging four § 1983 claims under federal law against all Defendants including the borough, police department, board of supervisors, police chief, and Officer Wittlinger. The remaining eight counts alleged claims solely against the officer. The Defendants' filed a partial motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim. The Court granted the dismissal of claims against the board, police chief, and officer in their official capacities. The court also dismissed the Plaintiff’s state negligence claims. However, the court did not dismiss claims brought against Police Chief Bazzone and Officer Wittlinger in their individual capacities. The court reasoned that the facts pled by the Plaintiff were sufficient to show that Chief Bazzone may have acted with deliberate indifference by not disciplining Officer Wittlinger after a prior dog shooting incident, and maintained a custom within the Police Department that it was proper to shoot a pet dog wandering the streets. The court also denied the motion to dismiss Plaintiff’s fourth amendment rights claim. The court reasoned that the facts pled by the Plaintiff were sufficient to state a claim for violation of her Fourth Amendment rights because the plaintiff had a possessory interest in her dog Sadie as “property” and the officer used excessive force while seizing the Plaintiff’s property. | Case | ||
| AK - Exotic Animals - Title 5. Fish and Game. Article 3. Permits. | 5 AAC 92.029 - 035 | 5 AK ADC 92.029 to .035 | These Alaska regulation provides that, except as otherwise provided in this chapter, no person may possess, import, release, export, or assist in those actions, live game, unless the person holds a possession permit issued by the department. The regulations also list species that may be possessed without a permit, but may not be released into the wild which includes dogs,cats, chimpanzees, white rats, and many others. The department may not issue a permit for the capture, possession, import, or export of any game animal, including a hybrid species of a game animal, for use as a pet. Any of the listed species of bird, mammal, or reptile that is endangered may not be held in private ownership without a permit from the United States Fish and Wildlife Service. | Administrative | |
| MN - Impound - Chapter 346. Animals | M. S. A. § 346.47 | MN ST § 346.47 (formerly MN ST § 35.71) | This is Minnesota's holding period law. This law mandates that all animals seized by public authority must be held for redemption for at least 5 business days by the impounding agency or a longer time if specified by municipal ordinance. The law requires the establishments to preserve records of the animals in custody for at least six months. A person must not release an animal seized and held under this section for research or product testing, either directly or through an animal dealer. | Statute | |
| IA - Hunting, canned - 484B.4. Hunting preserve operator's license--application and license requirements | I. C. A. § 484B.4 | IA ST S 484B.4 | Under this Iowa statute, a person who owns or controls by lease or otherwise for five or more years, a contiguous tract of land having an area of not less than three hundred twenty acres, and who desires to establish a hunting preserve to propagate and sell game birds and their young or unhatched eggs, and shoot game birds and ungulates on the land, can apply to the state for an operator's license. The commission reviews the application to determine, among other things, that allowance of the license is not detrimental to wildlife and does not interfere with migratory bird activity. | Statute | |
| Alvarez v. Clasen | 946 So.2d 181 (La.,2006) |
Plaintiff sued neighbors who trapped cat outside and brought it to an animal shelter where it was euthanized. This court held that private parties trapping a stray cat were not liable for conversion because local ordinances permitted animal shelters to hold stray cats. |
Case | ||
| Utah Animal Rights Coalition v. Salt Lake County | 566 F.3d 1236 (C.A.10 (Utah),2009) |
The plaintiffs-appellants (Utah Animal Rights Coalition (UARC) and five individuals) filed this 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claim for alleged violations of their First Amendment rights to free speech and to peaceably assemble after the individual plaintiffs attempted to protest a circus in South Jordan, Utah. The district court entered summary judgment against the plaintiffs. On appeal, this court held that, without a showing of harm, the UARC did not meet its burden to demonstrate an injury in fact. The court did find that the individuals properly pleaded harm to establish standing. With regard to the § 1983 action, this court ruled that the district court correctly determined that county officials were entitled to judgment as a matter of law. |
Case | ||
| KY - Endangered - 301 KAR 3:061. Endangered species of fish and wildlife | 301 Ky. Admin. Regs. 3:061 | 301 KAR 3:061 | It is unlawful for any person to import, transport, possess, process, sell or offer for sale any endangered species of fish and wildlife, or parts thereof, except as provided in Sections 3 and 4 of this administrative regulation. | Administrative | |
| Legal materials-PETA's investigation Caucaseco Research Center- materials - can this be published but hidden? I just need the links to the docs | Relevant legal documents concerning PETA's investigation into the cruel treatment of animals at the Malaria Research Center CAUCASECO, in Cali, Colombia. | Policy | |||
| WI - Vehicle - 895.484. Civil liability exemption; entering a vehicle to render assistance | W. S. A. 895.484 | WI ST 895.484 | This Wisconsin law enacted in 2015 makes a person immune from civil liability for property damage or injury resulting from his or her forcible entry into a vehicle to rescue an animal or person. Immunity is provided only if certain conditions were met. The person must have a "good faith belief" that the person or domestic animal was in imminent danger of suffering bodily harm and used no more force than necessary to remove the person or animal. That person must have first determined the vehicle was locked and forcible entry was necessary, and that person must have dialed 911 or other emergency services prior to this action. In addition, the person must have waited with the person or animal until emergency services arrived or left information on the vehicle's windshield as described in the law. | Statute | |
| Lawrence v. North Country Animal Control Center, Inc | 126 A.D.3d 1078, 5 N.Y.S.3d 558 (N.Y. App. Div. 2015) | 2015 WL 919734 (N.Y. App. Div. 2015) | Plaintiffs adopted a basset hound from animal control despite the fact that the dog had been turned over by a prior owner to be euthanized. The basset hound, who attacked the plaintiffs on three different occasions without injury, attacked plaintiffs' other dog. When one plaintiff tried to separate the dogs, the basset hound attacked him. Defendant removed the basset hound from the home that same day and refused to return the dog to the plaintiffs. Plaintiffs commenced this action seeking to recover damages for injuries, asserting causes of action for, among other things, negligence, fraudulent misrepresentation, products liability and intentional infliction of emotional distress. On appeal from the New York Supreme Court decision, the appellate court found that under the circumstances, issues of fact exist as to whether plaintiffs reasonably relied on defendants' misrepresentation and whether plaintiffs could have discovered the dog’s dangerous nature with due diligence. The appellate court also found that the contract clause at issue did not preclude plaintiffs from recovering for negligence because it did not “advise the signor that the waiver extended to claims that might arise from the defendant's own negligence.” The appellate court did, however, find that plaintiffs did not satisfy the “rigorous ... and difficult to satisfy requirements for a viable cause of action for intentional infliction of emotional distress.” The court also found that sanctions were not warranted. | Case |