Health
Displaying 241 - 250 of 321
Title |
Summary |
|---|---|
| Recchia v. City of Los Angeles Dep't of Animal Servs. | Petitioner Recchia sued the City of Los Angeles and animal control officers for violations of the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment and claims for state law tort violations. The claims arise from the 2011 warrantless seizure of Recchia's 20 birds (18 pigeons, one crow, and one seagull) kept in boxes and cages on the sidewalk where he lived (Recchia was homeless at the time). Animal control officers investigated Recchia after a complaint that a homeless man had birds at his campsite. Officers found cramped and dirty cages with several birds in "dire physical condition," although there is evidence the birds were in that condition before Recchia possessed them. After officers impounded the birds, a city veterinarian decided that all the pigeons needed to be euthanized due to concerns of pathogen transmission. Recchia discovered that the birds had been euthanized at his post-seizure hearing that was four days after impounded of the animals. At that hearing, the magistrate found the seizure was justified under the operative anti-neglect law (California Penal Code § 597.1(a)(1)). This § 1983 and state claim action followed. The district court adopted the magistrate judge's report and granted summary judgment for the defendants. On appeal, this court first examined whether the seizure of the healthy-looking birds was justified. The court held that hold that there was a genuine factual dispute about whether the healthy-looking birds posed any meaningful risk to other birds or humans at the time they were seized (it affirmed the dismissal as to the seizure of the birds that outwardly appeared sick/diseased). With regard to seizure of the birds without a pre-seizure hearing, the court applied the Matthews test to determine whether Recchia's rights were violated. Looking at the statute under which the birds were seized (Section 597.1), the court found that the law does afford adequate due process for Fourteenth Amendment purposes. As to other claims, the court granted Recchia permission to amend his complaint to challenge the city policy of not requiring a blood test before euthanizing the birds. The court also agreed with the lower court that the officers had discretionary immunity to state tort law claims of in seizing the animals. The district court's summary judgment was affirmed on Fourteenth Amendment and state tort claims against the officers, but vacated summary judgment on the Fourth Amendment claims against the animal control officers and constitutional claims against the city. |
| Rehn v. Fischley |
|
| Reichley v. Pennsylvania Dept. of Agriculture |
|
| RI - Dogs - Consolidated Dog Laws | These statutes comprise Rhode Island's dog laws. Among the provisions include licensing requirements, which are specified by county or town, vicious dog laws, and euthanasia provisions. |
| RI - Importation, pets - 40-05-1.8. Importation of Dogs and Cats for the Purpose of Rescue, Shelter, Foster Care, | This Rhode Island regulation provides that any entities that import a dog or cat for rescue, adoption, foster care, brokering, and/or remote sales must register with the Department via the submittal of an application form provided by the Department. |
| RI - Importation, pets - 40-05-1.9. Dogs and Cats | This regulation concerns the importation of dogs and cats. Under the reg, identification and Certificate of Veterinary Inspection are required for the importation of all dogs and cats. In addition, all dogs and cats three (3) months of age or older imported into Rhode Island must be accompanied by proof of rabies vaccination. |
| RI - Rabies - § 4-13-29.1. Responsibility for local rabies control | This Rhode Island statute provides that towns and cities are required to provide for the control of rabies in cats, dogs, and ferrets within its boundaries. The municipality may elect to adopt into ordinance provisions at least as stringent as this chapter. |
| RI - Restaurant - § 21-27-12. Outdoor dining--Dogs permitted | Rhode Island has the newest law. In July of 2016, a law enabling restaurant owners to allow a patron's dog to accompany the patron in the outdoor dining area during the hours designated by the owner of the restaurant became effective. The law is very similar to Maryland's by giving the restaurateur the ability to regulate the size and type of dog entering the area. The owner may also deny entry to the restaurant and can eject any patron accompanied by a dog at his or her own discretion. Signage explaining the policy and rules must be visibly posted. |
| SC - Bite - § 47-3-110. Liability for attacks by dogs, provoked attacks, trained law enforcement dogs. | This South Carolina statute provides that if a person is bitten or otherwise attacked by a dog while the person is in a public place or is lawfully in a private place, including the property of the dog owner or person having the dog in the person's care or keeping, the dog owner or person having the dog in the person's care or keeping is liable for the damages suffered by the person bitten or otherwise attacked. If a person provokes a dog into attacking him then the owner of the dog is not liable. |
| SC - Dog - Consolidated Dog Laws | These statutes comprise South Carolina's state dog laws. Among the provisions include laws concerning damage done by dogs (especially to livestock), rabies control provisions, and registration requirements. |