Impound or Animal Control

Displaying 71 - 80 of 334
Titlesort descending Summary
DC - Impoundment - § 8-1805. Impoundment Under this law, the Mayor shall make a prompt and reasonable attempt to locate and notify the owner of the impounded animal, including scanning the animal for a microchip. The Mayor shall deem abandoned any animal impounded and not redeemed by its owner within 7 days of impoundment if such animal is wearing identification. Any animal impounded not wearing identification shall be deemed abandoned if not redeemed by its owner within 5 days of impoundment. An animal deemed abandoned shall become the property of the District of Columbia and may be adopted or disposed of in a humane manner.
DC - Municipalities - § 1-303.41. Regulations for the keeping, leashing, and running at large of dogs. The following District of Columbia statute allows the council to make and the mayor to enforce regulations regarding leashing dogs in DC.
Denise Venero v. Prince George's County Maryland Plaintiffs filed this putative class action to challenge the Prince George's County, Maryland Pit Bull Ordinance and enforcement of the ordinance. Plaintiffs assert multiple due process and equal protection claims in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment, as well as several violations of the Fair Housing Act. The ordinance bans the keeping of pit bull terriers in the county, and requires any pit bull owners at the time the ordinance was adopted to register the dog, pay a fee, maintain a secure kennel, and keep the dog secure at all times. The court in this case found that the plaintiffs lack standing, since they could not show an injury in fact relating to the county's enforcement of the ordinance, the county has returned seized dogs to the plaintiffs, and the plaintiffs have been afforded due process through the county's administrative process.
Detailed Discussion of Humane Societies and Enforcement Powers


In some states, humane societies are granted police powers to enforce animal cruelty laws. This Article explains the systems that states use to grant police powers to humane societies.
Detailed Discussion of State Dog Impound Laws


This paper explores state and municipal dog impound laws, focusing specifically on loose dog laws, dogs chasing livestock laws, and public health laws. In doing so, the paper examines grants of police power to seize and destroy dog and what due process requirements constrain these state actions.
Detailed Discussion of the Laws Regulating Rescue and Foster Care Programs for Companion Animals This article will focus primarily on the rescue and foster care issues. Some of the types of laws that impact companion animal rescue and foster care organizations include legislative definitions, licensing, sterilization and vaccination, pet limit laws, zoning and nuisance laws, tethering laws, Breed Specific Legislation (or BSL), tort liability, and reimbursement for medical care in cruelty cases. While some examples will be given here, a rescue organization or foster care provider should check the specific state and city laws where they are located.
Dicesare v. Stout


The plaintiff was convicted under an Oklahoma anti-cruelty statute after officer seized his malnourished and neglected horses.  Later, plaintiff brought suit against the officers under 42 U.S.C 1983 claiming that the officers had violated his Fourth Amendment rights under the United States Constitution.  The court dismissed the plaintiff's claim after it determined that

 a horse corral near a home was not protected by the Fourth Amendment where the area was used for pastureland and the fence enclosing the area did not and was not intended to prevent the public from viewing the area. 

    
Dog Impound Laws
Dutka v. Cassady A rescue organization had adopted out a dog. The new owners were walking the dog unleashed when it attacked another dog. The plaintiff's filed a complaint of common law negligence and recklessness, which alleged that the rescue organization should have known and should have warned them of the dangerous tendencies of the specific dog but failed to do so. Connecticut law imposed strict liability on an owner or keeper of such an animal, and the statute had not been expanded to include the seller or transferor. The issue then was whether the court should expand the scope of such a negligence claim and create a duty of care owed by transferors or sellers of dogs with known and/or unknown propensities for aggression. The court found that there was no support for expanding liability in common law negligence when the organization in this case did not own, possess, harbor or control the dog. The court declines to impose a duty on the rescue agency to inform adoptive families.
Eastern Band Cherokee - Animal Control - Sec. 19.1, Animal Control Department

This section of the Eastern Band Cherokee Code describes the purpose of the Tribe's Animal Control Department. The Eastern Band Cherokee Animal Control Code includes Sections 19.1 through 19.7. Each section addresses a different topic within the Tribe's animal control, ranging from administrative purposes to restrictions and regulations.

Pages