Results
| Title | Citation | Alternate Citation | Agency Citation | Summary | Type |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| NY - Police Dog - § 122-c. Transport of police work dogs injured in the line of duty | NY GEN MUN § 122-c | McKinney's General Municipal Law § 122-c | This New York statutes allows for paramedics or emergency medical service technicians to transport any police work dog that is injured in the line of duty to a veterinary clinic if there are no persons requiring medical attention or transport at such time. | Statute | |
| U.S. v. Friday | 525 F.3d 938 (10th Cir., 2008) | 2008 WL 1971504 (C.A.10 (Wyo.)) |
The Defendant, a member of the Northern Arapaho Tribe of Wyoming, was charged with violating the Eagle Act after he illegally shot a bald eagle for an important religious ritual. The Defendant claimed that prosecution was prevented by the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA). Friday claimed that the government failed to protect eagles killed when they strike power lines. The Court of Appeals held that the permitting process did not facially violate the RFRA and any difference in government's treatment of Native Americans taking eagles for religious purposes and power companies whose power lines killed eagles did not indicate that government failed to protect eagles in least restrictive manner. |
Case | |
| CA - Education - Chapter 2.3. Pupils' Rights to Refrain from the Harmful or Destructive Use of Animals | West's Ann. Cal. Educ. Code § 32255 - 32255.6 | CA EDUC § 32255 - 32255.6 | This California chapter of laws concerns students refraining from engaging in animal dissection in education institutions. Under Section 32255.1, any pupil (defined as under age 18) with a moral objection to dissecting or otherwise harming or destroying animals, or any parts thereof, shall notify his or her teacher regarding this objection. If the pupil refrains from such participation, he or she and the teacher may work to develop an alternate education project. The pupil shall not be discriminated against based upon his or her decision to exercise his or her rights pursuant to this chapter. A pupil's objection to participating in an educational project pursuant to this section shall be substantiated by a note from his or her parent or guardian. | Statute | |
| MT - Veterinarian - 24.225.550. UNPROFESSIONAL CONDUCT | ARM 24.225.550 | Mont.Admin.R. 24.225.550 | This Montana regulation implies that a veterinarian has a mandatory duty to report suspected animal abuse. The Board of Veterinary Medicine defines unprofessional conduct in (1)(i) as, "(i) failure to report to the proper authorities cruel or inhumane treatment to animals, if the licensee has direct knowledge of the cruel or inhumane treatment." | Administrative | |
| MI - Hunting - Chapter 324. Natural Resources and Environmental Protection Act. | M.C.L.A. 324.42701 - 42714 | MI ST 324.42701 - 42714 | These sections describe the licensing of and regulations of breeders and dealers, including zoological parks. These sections also describe the parameters for enclosures and pens. | Statute | |
| Hendricks v. Barlow | 656 N.E.2d 481 (Ind. 1995) | 656 N.E.2d 481 (Ind. 1995) |
Landowners were held in violation of a zoning regulation, established under a Hendricks County ordinance, which forbade having wild animals residing on residential property. The trial court held that the county could not pass such a law, since it would be preempted by state and federal law. However, on appeal, this Court found that federal (the AWA) and state law did not preempt the County from passing such ordinances. The trial court erroneously attempted to interpret the law when it was not ambiguous, and, thus, preemption by state and federal law should not have been found. Thus, the zoning regulation was permitted. |
Case | |
| Xu v. Chen | 2008 CarswellBC 1693 | 2008 BCPC 234 |
The Claimant's six-month old sheltie puppy, "Diamond,” suffered a serious limb injury outside the front yard of the family home. Claimant seeks to recover the veterinarian costs she incurred to treat the dog's injury against Defendants, the owners of the other dog that allegedly attacked claimant’s dog. The court found that there was evidence that Defendant was previously contacted by Animal Control as well as a neighbor about an incident where Angus lunged at another dog. The Claimant has established, on a balance of probabilities, that Angus had manifested a propensity to cause the type of harm occasioned that night. Claimant was 25% liable for the incident where she left Diamond in an unfenced yard that gave other dogs access. The court denied Xu’s claim of $5500 for future medical costs for the care of Diamond because there was no evidence what these would be and the dog was currently living with another family. |
Case | |
| Penal Code, 1991, Peru | Decreto Legislativo No. 635, 1991 | Peru's Criminal Code includes provisions protecting animals based on property rights, the right to a healthy environment, and public health. Animal cruelty is regulated under crimes against property in chapter IX “damages,” in articles 205-207. Crimes against wildlife are regulated more extensively in Title XIII, “Environmental Crimes.” Articles 304–314. Other articles punishing action that directly or indirectly affect animals include Article 207 "Production or sale of spoiled food for animals;" Article 293 "Sale of animals unsafe for consumption; Article 447 "Entry of animals onto someone else's property." Finally, Chapter II-A, articles 189-A - 189-C regulate cattle rustling. | Statute | ||
| KS - Equine Activity Liability - Article 40. Assumption of Risk of Domestic Animal Activity. | K. S. A. 60-4001 to 4004 | KS ST § 60-4001 to 4004 | This Kansas statute provides that any participant in domestic animal activities assumes the inherent risks of when such participant engages in a domestic animal activity. This limitation of liability operates legally as an affirmative defense of assumption of risk pleaded by the domestic animal activity sponsor or domestic animal professional. The statute also requires the visible displaying of warning signs that alert participants to the limitation of liability by law and any written contract must provide explicit language outlined in the statute. | Statute | |
| Rivero v. Humane Soc. of Fayette County | Slip Copy, 2009 WL 18704 (W.D.Pa.) | Plaintiffs brought action against Defendants under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging Defendants violated their First and Fourth Amendment rights under the United States Constitution after Defendant dog control officers removed Plaintiffs’ dog from their home during an investigation into a report of a dead dog. The United States District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania granted Defendant Township’s motion for partial summary judgment, finding that Plaintiffs’ allegations, standing alone, do not state a claim against Defendant-Township, and that Plaintiffs failed to provide any factual support for their state law claims. | Case |