Results
| Title | Citation | Alternate Citation | Agency Citation | Summary | Type |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ME - Transport - § 2087. Transporting dogs in open vehicle regulated | 29-A M. R. S. A. § 2087 | ME ST T. 29-A § 2087 | This Maine law regulates the transporting of dogs in open vehicles (like pick-up trucks or convertibles). Under the law, a person driving an open vehicle may not transport a dog in the open portion of that vehicle on a public way unless the dog is protected in a manner that prevents the dog from falling or jumping or being thrown from the vehicle. The law excludes transportation of a dog by a farmer engaged in agricultural activities involving the dog or a hunting dog that is between transported between hunting sites by a licensed hunter. | Statute | |
| OK - Equine Activity Liability - Title 76. Torts. Livestock Activities Liability Limitation Act. | 76 Okl. St. Ann. § 50.1 - 50.4 | OK ST T. 76 § 50.1 - 50.4 | The Oklahoma Livestock Activities Liability Limitation Act provides that it is the intent of the Oklahoma Legislature to encourage livestock activities by limiting the civil liability of livestock activities sponsors, participants and livestock professionals involved in such activities. A livestock activity sponsor, a participant or a livestock professional acting in good faith and pursuant to the standards of the livestock industry shall not be liable for injuries to any person engaged in livestock activities when such injuries result from the inherent risks of livestock activities. Oklahoma also has a unique provision that explicitly states that two or more persons may agree, in writing, to extend the waiver of liability pursuant to the provisions of the Oklahoma Livestock Activities Liability Limitation Act. | Statute | |
| Macho v. Mahowald | 374 N.W.2d 312 (Minn.App.,1985) |
In this Minnesota case, a rider brought an action for personal injuries suffered after the defendant-owner's horse bolted while the rider was mounting the horse. The lower court entered judgment notwithstanding the verdict for the owner. The rider appealed. The Court of Appeals held that evidence showing that the horse had previously bolted was sufficient to create an issue for the jury as to whether the horse had a propensity to be dangerous. Further, with regard to whether the owner was negligent in allowing the rider to mount without properly adjusting the saddle equipment, the court found that the jury could have properly found both parties were negligent in failing to adjust the stirrups. |
Case | ||
| State ex rel Del Monto v. Woodmansee | State ex rel Del Monto v. Woodmansee, 72 N.E.2d 789 (Ohio 1946). |
In an action in mandamus, relator property owner sought a writ ordering respondent building commissioner of the City of Euclid to issue a building permit for the construction of a store building. The store building would be used for the slaughter of chicken. The state tired to oppose the building by stating the use would be against Ohio's cruelty to animal statute. The Court ruled that the term "animals" as thus used meant a quadruped, not a bird or fowl. Thus, the court ruled in favor of the property owner in his mandamus action against the commissioner. |
Case | ||
| WA - Humane Slaughter - Chapter 16.50. Humane Slaughter of Livestock. | West's RCWA 16.50.100 - 900 | WA ST 16.50.100 - 900 | The Washington humane slaughter laws begin with a statement that it is declared to be the policy of the state of Washington to require that the slaughter of all livestock, and the handling of livestock in connection with slaughter, shall be carried out only by humane methods. Humane methods are defined are those methods whereby the animal is rendered insensible to pain by mechanical, electrical, chemical or other means that is rapid and effective, before being shackled, hoisted, thrown, cast or cut; or methods in accordance with the ritual requirements of any religious faith whereby the animal suffers loss of consciousness by anemia of the brain. "Livestock" is limited under the statute to cattle, calves, sheep, swine, horses, mules and goats. Note that the director may, by administrative order, exempt a person from compliance with this chapter for a period of not to exceed six months if he finds that an earlier compliance would cause such person undue hardship. Violation of the act constitutes a misdemeanor and is subject to a fine of not more than two hundred fifty dollars or confinement in the county jail for not more than ninety days. | Statute | |
| NJ - Assistance Animals - Assistance Animal/Guide Dog Laws | N.J.S.A. 2A:42-109; 10:5-5; 10:5-29.1 - 11; 39:4-37.1; 27:25-5b; 48:3-33; App. A:9-43.2; 2C:29-3.1, 3.2; 48:3-33; 18A:46-13.3; 36:2-213 | NJ ST 2A:42-109; 10:5-5; 10:5-29.1 - 11; 39:4-37.1; 27:25-5b; 48:3-33; App. A:9-43.2; 2C:29-3.1, 3.2; 18A:46-13.3; 36:2-213 | The following statutes comprise the state's relevant assistance animal and guide dog laws. | Statute | |
| Roose v. State of Indiana | 610 N.E.2d 256 (1993) |
Defendant was charged with criminal mischief and cruelty to an animal after dragging it with his car. The court concluded that, although some of the photos admitted were gruesome, the municipal court validly admitted the photos of the dog that defendant injured into evidence because the photos clearly aided the jury in understanding the nature of those injuries and the veterinarian's testimony as to the medical attention that the dog received. |
Case | ||
| Martinez v. State | 48 S.W.3d 273 (Tex. App. 2001). |
A jury may infer a culpable mental state ("intentionally and knowingly") from the circumstances surrounding the offense of cruelty to animals. |
Case | ||
| US - Service animals - Nondiscrimination on the Basis of Disability by Public Accommodations and in Commercial Facilities | 2008 WL 2413721 (F.R.) | CRT Docket No. 106; AG Order No. 2968-2008 |
The Department of Justice (Department) is issuing this notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) in order to: Adopt enforceable accessibility standards under the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA) that are "consistent with the minimum guidelines and requirements issued by the Architectural and Transportation Barriers Compliance Board" (Access Board); and perform periodic reviews of any rule judged to have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities, and a regulatory assessment of the costs and benefits of any significant regulatory action as required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act, as amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (SBREFA).
|
Administrative | |
| TX - Domestic Violence - § 85.021-.022 Protective Orders | V.T.C.A., Family Code § 85.021 -.022 | TX FAMILY § 85.021 - 022 | In a protective order in Texas, the court may prohibit a party from removing a pet, companion animal, or assistance animal, as defined by Section 121.002, Human Resources Code, from the possession of a person named in the order. Furthermore, in a protective order, the court may prohibit the person found to have committed family violence from harming, threatening, or interfering with the care, custody, or control of a pet, companion animal, or assistance animal that is possessed by or is in the actual or constructive care of a person protected by an order or by a member of the family or household of a person protected by an order. | Statute |