Results
| Title | Citation | Alternate Citation | Summary | Type |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Argentina - Marine mammals - Ley 22.584, 1982 | LEY N° 22.584 | Ley 22584 approves the "Convention on the Conservation of Antarctic Marine Living Resources” that was adopted at the Diplomatic Conference held in Canberra on May 20, 1980 and subscribed by Argentina on the September 11th of that year. | Statute | |
| WY - Cruelty, livestock - Chapter 29. Protection of Livestock Animals. | W. S. 1977 §§ 11-29-101 to 115 | WY ST §§ 11-29-101 to 115 | This chapter concerns cruelty to livestock animals. The laws state that every person who confines or causes to be confined any livestock animal under the laws of this state, must supply to the livestock animal during confinement a sufficient quantity of wholesome food and water. The section also provides that officers and agents of the Wyoming livestock board must be provided with a certificate and badge. Any peace officer, agent or officer of the board may lawfully interfere to prevent the perpetration of any act of cruelty upon any livestock animal in his or her presence | Statute |
| SC - Pet Sales - § 47-13-160. Fitness of registered companion dog or cat for sale; definitions; certifications; remedies. | Code 1976 § 47-13-160 | SC ST § 47-13-160 | This South Carolina statute provides that no pet dealer, pet shop, or pet breeder shall sell a registered companion dog or cat without providing to the purchaser a statement certifying that the dog or cat has received an infectious disease inoculation. If at any time within fourteen days following the sale and delivery of a registered companion dog or cat to a purchaser, a licensed veterinarian certifies the animal to be unfit for purchase due to a noncongenital cause or condition or within six months certifies an animal to be unfit for purchase due to a congenital or hereditary cause or condition, a purchaser has the right to elect one of the following options described in the statute. This section is apparently limited to registered dogs or cats. | Statute |
| Brock v. Rowe | Stan Brock, a former NFL star, is suing is neighbor for shooting his two dogs with a bow and arrow. This is an opposition to a motion to dismiss on a claim of emotional distress for loss of family pets. The motion was successful. | Pleading | ||
| Earth Island Inst. v. Evans | 256 F. Supp. 2d 1064 (N.D. Cal. 2003) | Plaintiff, groups seeking to protect animals, sought to enjoin implementation of a final finding of defendant, the Secretary of Commerce and his Assistant Administrator of Fisheries, that the encirclement of dolphins with purse seine nets was not having an adverse impact on dolphin stocks as arbitrary, capricious, and an abuse of discretion. The court granted the groups' motion for preliminary injunction, enjoined the Secretary from taking any action to allow any tuna product to be labeled as "dolphin safe" that was harvested using purse seine nets, pending final disposition of the groups' action, and defined what "dolphin safe" would continue to mean. | Case | |
| Harabes v. Barkery, Inc. | 791 A.2d 1142 (N.J.Super.L., 2001) | 348 N.J.Super. 366 (2001) |
Plaintiffs claim their pet dog, Gabby, died of medical complications after she was negligently subjected to extreme heat for an extended period of time at The Barkery, a dog grooming business. The Court observed that there is no New Jersey precedent permitting a pet owner to recover non-economic damages when a pet is negligently injured or killed; therefore, the court looked policy and rationale which underlies similar cases in this and other jurisdictions. The Court concluded that the difficulty in quantifying the emotional value of a companion pet and the risk that a negligent tortfeasor will be exposed to extraordinary and unrealistic damage claims weighed against allowing damages. Most significantly, the court found that public policy mitigated against allowing emotional distress and loss of companionship damages, which are unavailable for the loss of a child or spouse, for the loss of a pet dog. |
Case |
| VA - Impound - § 3.2-6548. Private animal shelters; confinement and disposition of animals; affiliation with foster care providers; penalties; injunctive relief | Va. Code Ann. § 3.2-6548 | VA ST § 3.2-6548 | This Virginia statute outlines the requirements for private animal shelters. Included are provisions that each animal shelter must obtain a signed statement from each of its directors, operators, and staff specifying that the individual has never been convicted of animal cruelty, neglect, or abandonment. The State Veterinarian's office is responsible for inspection of the facilities to be sure the spaces for animals are adequate. The statute also describes the requirements for animal foster care homes and states the penalties for violations of this statutory section. | Statute |
| OH - Ordinance - 955.221 County, township, and municipal corporation ordinances to control dogs | R.C. § 955.221 | OH ST § 955.221 | This Ohio statute provides that a board of county commissioners, board of township trustees, municipal corporation may adopt and enforce resolutions to control dogs that are not otherwise in conflict with any other provision of the Revised Code. These ordinances or resolutions to control dogs include, but are not limited to, ordinances or resolutions concerned with the ownership, keeping, or harboring of dogs, the restraint of dogs, dogs as public nuisances, and dogs as a threat to public health, safety, and welfare, except that such ordinances or resolutions shall not prohibit the use of any dog which is lawfully engaged in hunting or training for the purpose of hunting while accompanied by a licensed hunter. | Statute |
| MT - Butte-Silver County - Title 6: Animals (Chapter 6.04: Animal Control) | Butte-Silver Bow Municipal Code §§ 6.04.010, 6.04.030, 6.04.150 to 6.04.220, 6.04.260, 6.04.292 |
In Butte-Silver Bow County, Montana, it is unlawful for any dog, whether restrained or unrestrained, to be in certain public places unless the dog is assisting a sight or hearing impaired person. Additionally, license fees are waived for dogs trained to assist sight or hearing impaired persons, when such dogs are actually being used by sight or hearing impaired persons, but such dogs must still obtain a license and must still be vaccinated. |
Local Ordinance | |
| McCausland v. People | McCausland v. People, 145 P. 685 (Colo. 1914) | Action by the People of the State of Colorado against William J. McCausland. From a judgement overruling defendant's motion to dismiss and finding him guilty of cruelty to animals, he brings error. Affirmed. | Case |