Landlord or Tenant
Title | Summary |
---|---|
Ranwez v. Roberts |
|
Ranwez v. Roberts |
|
Ramirez v. M.L. Management Co., Inc. |
|
Prindable v. Association of Apartment Owners of 2987 Kalakaua |
|
NV - Housing - 116.318. Right of units’ owners to keep pet | This Nevada law enacted in 2019 states that the executive board of an association shall not and the governing documents of that association must not prohibit a unit's owner from keeping at least one pet within such physical portion of the common-interest community as that owner has a right to occupy and use exclusively. |
No Pets Allowed: Housing Issues and Companion Animals | |
NH - Housing, pets - Chapter 161-F. Elderly and Adult Services. Companion Animals | This New Hampshire chapter relates to the keeping of pets in housing for the elderly. Under the chapter, "animals” means common domesticated household animals limited to: dogs, cats, caged birds, and aquarium fish. Tenants of any housing for the elderly project can petition to keep companion animals. The petition is determined by a simple majority vote of 10 percent of all tenants. Other provisions include the establishment of a reasonable damage deposit and a responsibility by the tenant to provide management with an agreement that allows someone else to act as a temporary or permanent caretaker if he or she becomes unable to do so. |
NC - Hotels - § 72-7.1. Admittance of pets to hotel rooms | This North Carolina laws states that innkeepers may permit pets in rooms used for sleeping purposes and in adjoining rooms. Persons bringing pets into a room in which they are not permitted are in violation of this section and punishable according to subsection (d). All sleeping rooms in which the innkeeper permits pets must contain a sign posted in a prominent place in the room stating that pets are permitted in the room. |
Nason v. Stone Hill Realty Association | A tenant with multiple sclerosis took in her mother's cat when her mother became ill. The housing authority had a no pets policy and requested that the tenant remove the pet from the premises. The tenant in turn offered a letter from her physician stating that "there would be serious negative consequences for her health if she was compelled to remove the cat." The court held that the tenant did not meet her burden of proving a nexus between the cat and her multiple sclerosis, reasoning that the physician's note does not state that the cat is necessary to alleviate her symptoms and that a more reasonable accommodation may be available. |
Morehead v. Deitrich |
|