Source: https://www.animallaw.info/filters?topic=All&amp%3Bamp%3Bspecies=All&amp%3Bamp%3Btype=All&amp%3Bamp%3Bcountry=15357&amp%3Bamp%3Bjurisdiction=All&amp%3Bamp%3Bcombine_op=contains&amp%3Bamp%3Bkeyword=&amp%3Bamp%3Bpage=5&amp%3Bamp%3Border=title&amp%3Bamp%3Bsort=asc&amp%3Bpage=584&species=All&type=All&country=All&jurisdiction=All&combine_op=contains&keyword=&order=field_author_last_name&sort=asc
Timestamp: 2020-02-20 05:46:05
Document Index: 21524121

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 597', '§ 597', '§ 597', '§ 4', '§ 14', '§ 14', '§ 14']

Displaying 1 - 10 of 6081
Stamm v. New York City Transit Authority Not Reported in F.Supp.2d 2011 WL 1315935 (E.D.N.Y., 2011) Plaintiff brought this action pursuant to Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act (the “ADA”), Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, and New York State and New York City laws, alleging that the New York City Transit Authority (“NYCTA”) and the Manhattan and Bronx Surface Transit Operating Authority (“MaBSTOA”) (collectively, “Defendants”) failed to ensure that their vehicles and facilities were accessible to her and other persons with disabilities who utilize service animals. Defendants moved for summary judgment, arguing that Plaintiff (1) was not disabled, (2) was not entitled to use a “service animal,” (3) was seeking to bring dogs which do not qualify as “service animals” onto Defendants' vehicles; had not made out a Title II claim and (5) could not make out a claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress. Defendants' motion for summary judgment was granted only with respect to that portion of the eleventh cause of action that alleged intentional infliction of emotional distress. The parties were also directed to submit supplemental briefing. Case
Hoffmann v. Marion County, Tex. 592 F. App'x 256 (5th Cir. 2014) 2014 WL 6306580 Plaintiffs operated a derelict-animal “sanctuary” on their ten-acre property in Marion County, Texas, where they held over one hundred exotic animals, including six tigers, several leopards, and a puma. Plaintiffs were arrested and charged with animal cruelty and forfeited the animals. Afterward, plaintiffs sued many of those involved in the events under a cornucopia of legal theories, all of which the district court eventually rejected. On appeal, plaintiffs argued Marion County and the individual defendants violated their Fourth Amendment rights by illegally searching their property and seizing the animals. The court held, however, that government officials may enter the open fields without a warrant, as the defendants did here, because “an open field is neither a house nor an effect, and, therefore, the government's intrusion upon the open fields is not one of those unreasonable searches proscribed by the text of the Fourth Amendment.” One plaintiff further alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act; however, the court dismissed this claim because the plaintiff failed to allege how he was excluded from a government benefit or effective service as a result of not having an interpreter during the investigation or arrest. The other claims were either dismissed for lack of jurisdiction, not being properly appealed, or not stating a proper cause of action. The district court’s grant of summary judgment was therefore affirmed. Case
CA - Horse docking - § 597q. Docked horses; unregistered; prima facie evidence West's Ann. Cal. Penal Code § 597q CA PENAL § 597q
United States v. Hughes 626 F.2d 619 (9th Cir. 1980)
In re Polar Bear Endangered Species Act Listing and § 4(d) Rule Litigation 627 F.Supp.2d 16 (D.D.C.,2009) 2009 WL 1750413 (D.D.C.)
Animal Legal Defense Fund v. LT Napa Partners LLC, 234 Cal. App. 4th 1270, 184 Cal. Rptr. 3d 759 (Cal. Ct. App. 2015), review filed (Apr. 16, 2015) 2015 WL 1004423 (Cal. Ct. App. 2015) Plaintiff and respondent Animal Legal Defense Fund filed an action against defendants and appellants LT Napa Partners LLC and Kenneth Frank for unfair competition, alleging defendants sold foie gras in their Napa restaurant in violation of California law. Defendants moved to strike plaintiff's claim pursuant to the anti-SLAPP statute, arguing it was exercising its free speech rights by protesting the law. Defendants appealed the trial court's denial of the motion. The appeals court affirmed the lower court's decision because the ALDF demonstrated probability of prevailing on the claim that it had standing under Unfair Competition Law (UCL); showed basis for liability against chef; and showed probability of prevailing on its claim that owner and chef unlawfully sold foie gras. Case
AR - Ordinances - § 14-16-701. River and improvement district A.C.A. § 14-16-701 AR ST § 14-16-701
Vickers v. Egbert 359 F. Supp. 2d 1358 (Fla. 2005)
Auster v. Norwalk United Methodist Church 894 A.2d 329 (Conn.App., 2006) 94 Conn.App. 617, 2006 WL 797892 (Conn.App.)