Results
| Title | Citation | Alternate Citation | Summary | Type |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Empacadora De Carnes De Fresnillo v. Tim Curry |
Plaintiff seeks an injunction against state of Texas to stop the enforcement of a law prohibiting the slaughter of horses in Texas as the law is improper on a number of bases. |
Pleading | ||
| Hardsaw v. Courtney | 665 N.E.2d 603 (Ind.App.,1996) |
In this Indiana case, the Hardsaws appeal a jury verdict in favor of the Courtneys stemming from their complaint for damages against the Hardsaws after their daughter Kimberly was attacked and bitten by the Hardsaws' dog who was under the supervision of the Hardsaw's 12-year-old daughter at the time of the attack. The Courtneys alleged negligent entrustment. On appeal, the Hardaws argue that, as a matter of law, absent evidence of prior viciousness, they could not have been negligent in entrusting Buster to their daughter and, thus, that this case should not have been submitted to the jury. The court found that the question of whether owner's entrustment of the control and restraint of a dog to a child was reasonable under the circumstances is a question for the jury. Here, the dog was restrained in the yard by a chain, but he was left under the care and supervision of a twelve-year-old child who had no previous experience supervising him. The judgment was affirmed. |
Case | |
| Fund for Animals, Inc. v. U.S. Bureau of Land Management | 460 F.3d 13 (D.C. Cir. 2006) |
The Bureau of Land Management has responsibility for managing the numbers of horses and burros under the Wild Free-Roaming Horses and Burros Act. The Bureau issued a memorandum detailing how it was going to remove excess horses and burros from public land, and acted on that memorandum by removing some horses from public lands. Several non-profit groups sued, and the court found that it could not judge the memo because the Bureau had not made any final agency action and because the memo was only to be in force for a temporary time. Additionally, because the Bureau was simply acting according to its mandate under the Act, the court found for the Bureau. |
Case | |
| Bolivia - Circus - LEY Nº 4040, 2009 | LEY Nº 4040, 2009 | This law eliminates the use of wild and/or domestic animals in circuses in the national territory, as it is considered an act of cruelty against animals. Circuses were given a deadline of one year to surrender their animals and modify their shows. | Statute | |
| TX - Impound - § 826.033. Restraint, Impoundment, and Disposition of Dogs and Cats. | V. T. C. A., Health & Safety Code § 826.033 | TX HEALTH & S § 826.033 | This Texas statute provides that a municipality or county may adopt ordinances or rules to require that each dog or cat be restrained by its owner and that any stray dog or cat be declared a public nuisance. Further, it can declare that each unrestrained dog or cat be detained or impounded by the local rabies control authority. Each stray dog or cat be impounded for a period set by ordinance or rule and a humane disposition be made of each unclaimed stray dog or cat upon its expiration. | Statute |
| NV - Wildlife - Chapter 501. Administration and Enforcement. | NRS § 501.097 | NV ST § 501.097 | "Wildlife" means any wild mammal, wild bird, fish, reptile, amphibian, mollusk or crustacean found naturally in a wild state, whether indigenous to Nevada or not and whether raised in captivity or not. | Statute |
| State v. Morival | 75 So.3d 810 (Fla.App. 2 Dist., 2011) | 2011 WL 6058299 (Fla.App. 2 Dist.) |
Defendant moved to dismiss charges of two felony counts of animal cruelty. The District Court of Appeal held that systematically depriving his dogs of nourishment was properly charged as felony animal cruelty rather than misdemeanor. Defendant fed his dogs so little that they suffered malnutrition over an extended period of time. This amounted to repeated infliction of unnecessary pain or suffering. |
Case |
| MI - Courtroom - 600.2163a. Protections and procedures for minor, developmentally-disabled, and vulnerable-adult | M.C.L.A. 600.2163a | This law relates to the use of courtroom support dogs, which became effective in January 2019. The court must permit a witness who is called upon to testify to have a courtroom support dog and handler sit with, or be in close proximity to, the witness during his or her testimony. For purposes of this law, "witness" is defined as a person under the age of 16, a person over 16 who has a developmental disability, or a vulnerable adult. This section only applies to certain prosecutions and proceedings under the Michigan penal code. A notice of intent to use a support person or courtroom support dog is only required if the support person or courtroom support dog is to be utilized during trial and is not required for the use of a support person or courtroom support dog during any other courtroom proceeding. “Courtroom support dog” means a dog that has been trained and evaluated as a support dog pursuant to the Assistance Dogs International Standards for guide or service work and that is repurposed and appropriate for providing emotional support to children and adults within the court or legal system or that has performed the duties of a courtroom support dog prior to September 27, 2018. | Statute | |
| MD - Service animal - § 9-957. Maryland Veterans Service Animal Program | MD Code, State Government, § 9-957 | This 2017 law establishes the Maryland Veterans Service Animal Program. A purpose of the Program is to refer eligible veterans who inquire about participation in the Program to one or more nonprofit training entities. The Department shall select at least one qualified nonprofit training entity to implement a training protocol that will teach each Program participant methodologies, strategies, and techniques for partnering with service dogs or support dogs. This entity will also help select and facilitate training of service or support dogs. The Maryland Veterans Service Animal Program Fund is also established to fund the Program. | Statute | |
| RI - Assistance Animals - Consolidated Assistance Animal Laws | Gen. Laws, 1956, § 4-13-4, § 4-13-16.1, § 39-2-13, § 31-18-14 - 16.1, § 34-37-4, § 40-9.1-1 - 1.7; 42-87-3; § 34-37.1-6 | RI ST § 4-13-4, § 4-13-16.1, § 39-2-13, § 31-18-14 - 16.1, § 34-37-4, § 40-9.1-1 - 1.7; 42-87-3; § 34-37.1-6 | The following statutes comprise the state's relevant assistance/service animal laws. | Statute |