United States

Displaying 3521 - 3530 of 4785
Titlesort ascending Summary
FAQ: Dogs in Restaurants This FAQ explores what states have laws concerning dogs in outdoor dining area of restaurants. As of 2023, 23 states have laws or administrative regulations that allow patrons to bring pet dogs to outdoor dining spaces in restaurants. Some laws require that the local unit of government first enact an ordinance allowing the activity.
FAQ: Can I sell an old fur made from an endangered animal?
FAQ: Advocating for animal laws

This reader-based FAQ provides information on how to begin animal advocacy.
FAQ on Service Animals and Air Travel This FAQ provides a short explanation of the law and regulations related to service animals on U.S. commercial airlines.
FAQ on Internet Puppy Scams
Fandrey v. American Family Mutual Insurance Company


Dog bite victim sued homeowners insurer.  Held:  courts may factor traditional public policy to bar a claim under the dog bite statute, and in this case, public policy precludes imposing liability on homeowners even though the dog bite statute appears to impose strict liability.
Fallini v. Hodel


The Wild and Free-Roaming Horse Act does not require that wild horses be prevented from straying onto private land, only that they be removed if they do stray onto private land.  
Fair Housing of the Dakotas, Inc. v. Goldmark Property Management, Inc. Plaintiffs bring this action against Goldmark Property Management alleging discrimination on the basis of disability in violation of the Fair Housing Act. The alleged discriminatory policy is a mandatory application fee, non-refundable deposit, and monthly charge that Goldmark imposes on tenants with disabilities who reside with a non-specially trained assistance animal (i.e. a companion pet). These same fees are waived for tenants with disabilities who reside with a trained assistance animal (i.e. a seeing eye dog). The FHA encompasses all types of assistance animals regardless of training; therefore, Goldmark's policy implicates the FHA. Further, Plaintiffs have met their burden of establishing a prima face case of discrimination and have presented sufficient evidence to create genuine issues for trial on the questions of the necessity and reasonableness of the requested accommodation and whether Goldmark's alleged objective for the policy is permissible under the FHA and not pretextual. Therefore, Goldmark's motion for summary judgment is granted in part and denied in part. It is granted as to Plaintiffs' claim of disparate treatment because no proof was offered of a discriminatory intent. It is denied as to Plaintiffs' claims of disparate impact and failure to make a reasonable accommodation.
Failure to Launch: The Lack of Implementation and Enforcement of the Animal Welfare Act Failure to launch syndrome “is an increasingly popular way to describe the difficulties some young adults face when transitioning into the next phase of development—a stage which involves greater independence and responsibility.” One might say that the Animal Welfare Act suffers from failure to launch syndrome. The Animal Welfare Act was passed over fifty years ago and yet, it has not matured past its infancy in terms of effectively preventing unnecessary and inhumane animal experiments. This article will explore the failures of Congress, the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA), the Institutional Animal Care and Use Committees (IACUCs), research facilities, and funding agencies to implement and enforce the Animal Welfare Act.
Fackler v. Genetzky


Plaintiffs sued defendant for the death of their racehorses resulting from alleged veterinary malpractice.  The court held that a genuine issue of material fact as to whether veterinarian's actions comported with professional standard of care in treating racehorses precluded summary judgment.  However, the owners were not entitled to recover damages for their emotional distress as result of veterinarian's alleged negligent destruction of horses.  Nebraska law has generally regarded animals as personal property and emotional damages cannot be had for the negligent destruction of personal property.

Pages