Results
| Title | Citation | Alternate Citation | Agency Citation | Summary | Type | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Derecho Animal Volume 6 Núm 3 |
|
Policy | |||||||||
| Mann v. Regan | 948 A.2d 1075 (Conn.App.2008) | 108 Conn.App. 566, 2008 WL 2446592 (Conn.App.) |
The plaintiff (Mann) brought this action to recover damages for injuries she sustained to her face when she was bitten by a dog owned by the defendant (Regan). The incident occurred when the defendant’s dog was being cared for by the plaintiff at her house while the defendant traveled out of state. With regard to defendant's tacit admission challenge, this court found that defendant’s silence in response to her daughter’s statement, “Well, mom, you know he bit you,” was within the trial court’s discretion to admit as a hearsay exception. As to the jury instructions, this court was not persuaded that there is a meaningful distinction between the words “vicious” and “dangerous” as used in the context of an action stemming from a dog bite. |
Case | |||||||
| Revista Brasileira de Direito Animal Volume 14 |
SUMÁRIOEDITORIALHeron José de Santana Gordilho………………………………………………. |
Policy | |||||||||
| VT - Impound - Sub Chapter 2. Pounds and Impounds. | 20 V.S.A. § 3381 - 3485 | VT ST T. 20 § 3381 - 3485 | The following Vermont statutes require that each organized Vermont town maintain a pound or else the town will be fined $30.00. The statutes also provide provisions for impounding an animal, retrieving an impounded animal, failing to retrieve an impounded animal, and assessing damages of an impounded animal, amongst other topics. | Statute | |||||||
| NV - Breed - 687B.383. Refusal to issue, cancellation of, nonrenewal certain policies solely on basis of breed | N.R.S. 687B.383 | NV ST 687B.383 | This Nevada law effective in 2022 provides that an insurer shall not refuse to issue, cancel, refuse to renew, or increase the premium for an insurance policy based solely on the specific breed or mixture of breed of a dog. This does not prohibit those actions if the policy change is directly related to a dog that has been previously declared dangerous or vicious. | Statute | |||||||
| TN - Selmer - Breed - Chapter 3. Pit Bulls. | SELMER, TN., MUNICIPAL CODE § 10-301 to 306 (2008) |
In Selmer, Tennessee, it is unlawful to keep, harbor, own, exercise control over, maintain, transport, sell, or possess a pit bull dog. Any person owning such dogs at the time this chapter was adopted had 90 days to comply. The police may seize and impound any pit bull dog within the corporate limits of Selmer. A violation may result in a fine of $50. |
Local Ordinance | ||||||||
| Madero v. Luffey | 439 F. Supp. 3d 493 (W.D. Pa. 2020), clarified on denial of reconsideration, No. 2:19-CV-700, 2020 WL 9815453 (W.D. Pa. Mar. 13, 2020) | Ronald Madero allegedly took care of abandoned cats in his neighborhood by giving them food, shelter, and occasional medical care. Madero lived in a duplex in which his son owned both halves of the building. A neighbor contacted Animal Care and Control (ACC) and complained about abandoned kittens in front of her residence. On or about June 15, 2017, Officer Christine Luffey of the Pittsburgh Police Department arrived at Madero’s residence with a non-officer volunteer, Mary Kay Gentert. Officer Luffey requested to inspect the inside of both sides of the duplex. Madero refused and Luffey claimed she had a search warrant. Madero believed that Gentert was present to assist with spay and neuter services for the cats and consented to allow Gentert to inspect the premises while Luffey waited outside. Gentert took photographs inside. Some time afterwards, Luffey executed a search warrant. Madero asserted that the information gathered and photographs taken by Gentert were used to obtain the search warrant. A total of forty-two cats were seized. Madero asserts that after the cats were seized the cats were left for hours on the hot concrete in direct sunlight with no water and that snare catch poles were used to strangle the cats and force them into carriers or traps. Madero further asserted that the cats were not provided with veterinary care for several weeks and were kept in small cages in a windowless room. Some of the cats were ultimately euthanized. On August 7, 2017, Officer Luffey filed a criminal complaint against Madero accusing him of five counts of misdemeanor cruelty to animals and thirty-seven summary counts of cruelty to animals. Madero pled nolo contendere to twenty counts of disorderly conduct and was sentenced to ninety days of probation for each count with all twenty sentences to run consecutively. Madero filed a complaint asserting various causes of action under 42 U.S.C. 1983 and state law alleging illegal search and wrongful seizure of the cats against Officer Luffey, Homeless Cat Management Team (“HCMT”), Provident, and Humane Animal Rescue (“HAR”). The defendants each filed Motions to Dismiss. Madero pled that the cats were abandoned or stray cats, however, he also pled that the cats were his property and evidenced this by pleading that he fed the cats and provided shelter as well as veterinary care. The Court found that Madero pled sufficient facts to support ownership of the cats to afford him the standing to maintain his claims under section 1983 and common law. The Court held that Madero pled a plausible claim against Luffey on all counts of his complaint. Madero alleged that Officer Luffey violated his Fourth Amendment rights by lying about having a search warrant and securing consent by threatening to bust his door down. As for Madero’s state law claims, the court dismissed his negligent misrepresentation claim against Luffey as well as his claims for concerted tortious conduct. Madero failed to plead a threshold color of state law claim against the HAR defendants. There can be no violation of constitutional rights without state action. Madero’s claims for conversion and trespass to chattel against the HAR defendants were also dismissed. All claims against Provident were dismissed, however, Madero’s claim against HCMT for conspiracy was able to proceed. The Court ultimately denied in part and granted in part Officer Luffey’s Motion to Dismiss, Granted HAR’s Motion to Dismiss, and denied in part and granted in part HCMT’s and Provident’s Motion to Dismiss. | Case | ||||||||
| Protect Our Eagles v. City of Lawrence | 715 F. Supp. 996 (D. Kan. 1989) |
The court held that no private right of action exists under the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act, where a group of concerned citizens brought a civil action under the BGEPA against a developer to prevent the demolition of a grove of trees where wintering eagles perch. For further discussion on the construction and application of the BGEPA, see Detailed Discussion of Eagle Act . |
Case | ||||||||
| AK - Initiatives - 05HUNT (shooting bears and wolves from aircraft) | 05-HUNT (2008) | This 2008 measure was an initiated state statute presented to voters in August of 2008. The measure would have prohibited shooting of a free-ranging wolf, wolverine, or grizzly bear the same day that the person has been airborne. It was defeated by a margin of 44.4% for the measure and 55.6% against on August 26th. | Statute | ||||||||
| US - Marine Mammals - Taking and Importing of Marine Mammals; Listing of the Northeastern Offshore Spotted Dolphin as Depleted | 1993 WL 439609 (F.R.) | I.D. 102093F |
NMFS has determined that the northeastern stock of offshore spotted dolphin is below its maximum net productivity level (MNPL) and, therefore, is depleted as defined by the Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA). This determination is based on a review of the best available information. |
Administrative |