Results
| Title | Citation | Alternate Citation | Summary | Type |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| VT - Assistance animal - Assistance Animal/Guide Dog Laws | 13 V.S.A. § 355; 9 V.S.A. § 4502 - 4507; 23 V.S.A. § 1057 | VT ST T 13 § 355; VT ST T 9 V§ 4502 - 4507; VT ST T 23 § 1057 | The following statutes comprise the state's relevant assistance animal and guide dog laws. | Statute |
| MI - Pet Trusts - Chapter 700. Estates and Protected Individuals Code. Estates and Protected Individuals Code. | M. C. L. A. 700.2722 | MI ST 700.2722 | This Michigan statute provides that a trust for the care of a designated domestic or pet animal is valid (these trusts follow the terms for non-charitable trusts and thus, can be of a duration of up to 21 years). The trust terminates when no living animal is covered by the trust. Extrinsic evidence is admissible to prove the transferor's intent and the court may reduce the amount of the property transferred if it determines that that amount substantially exceeds the amount required for the intended use. | Statute |
| OK - Ordinances - § 43. Counties over 200,000 population--Regulation and control of dogs running at large--Penalties | 4 Okl. St. Ann. § 43 | OK ST T. 4 § 43 | This Oklahoma statute provides that the board of county commissioners of any county with a population of two hundred thousand (200,000) or more may regulate or prohibit the running at large of dogs and may impound and dispose of such dogs. The board of county commissioners may also regulate and provide for taxing the owners and harborers of dogs, and authorize the humane killing or disposal of dogs, found at large, contrary to any ordinance regulating the same. Any person, firm or corporation who violates any rule or regulation made by such board of county commissioners under the authority of this act shall be guilty of a misdemeanor and shall be punished as provided by the laws of this state. | Statute |
| Mexico - Cruelty - La Ley General de Equilibrio Ecológico y Protección al Ambiente | General Law of Ecological Balance and Environmental Protection | This law focuses on the sustainable use of the environment and wildlife, the preservation and restoration of the ecosystems. It seeks to protect the national biodiversity and establish and manage protected areas. It establishes that, to protect and sustainably use the flora and fauna, it is important, among other things, to encourage dignified and respectful treatment of animals to avoid cruelty against them. Moreover, it establishes that it is the duty of the federal government, the states, and the municipalities within their respective power to regulate the dignified and respectful treatment of animals (arts 78-79). The regulation of this treatment must be based on the following principles: (1) provide animals with enough water and food in order to keep them healthy and healthy; (2) provide animals with an adequate environment for their rest, movement, and space according to the species; (3) provide animals with adequate veterinary care and, in case of illness, provide prompt veterinary treatment; (4) allow animals to express their natural behavior; and (5) provide animals with adequate treatment and conditions to guarantee their well-being. | Statute | |
| AR - North Little Rock - Breed - Sec. 10-46. Banning of pit bull breeds of dogs. | NORTH LITTLE ROCK, AR., MUNICIPAL CODE § 10-46 |
In North Little Rock, Arkansas, pit bull dogs are banned, with exceptions for registered AKC show dogs and dogs that are grandfathered in, as long as the owner is 21 years old, has the dog sterilized and vaccinated for rabies, keeps it properly confined, uses a leash, and displays a "Beware of Dog" sign. Failure to comply will result in the seizure of the dog.
|
Local Ordinance | |
| Pruett v. Arizona | 606 F.Supp.2d 1065 (D.Ariz.,2009) | 21 A.D. Cases 1520 |
A diabetic woman in Arizona attempted to keep a chimpanzee as an assistance animal in spite of the state’s ape ban. Despite the state’s ban, the diabetic woman imported a chimpanzee with the intention of keeping him as a service animal, claiming that she was entitled to do so under the Federal Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA). In September of 2007, the chimpanzee’s owner sued the State of Arizona, the Game and Fish Commission, and the Director of the Game and Fish Department in federal court claiming that they had violated her rights under the federal disability laws. According to the plaintiff, the ADA requires the state to make “reasonable accommodations” for disabled individuals; and in her case this meant the state must waive its ban on possessing “restricted” apes so that she can keep a chimpanzee in her home as a service animal. The District Court found that the plaintiff’s chimpanzee is “unnecessary” and “inadequate” to meet her disability-related needs and the animal is not a “reasonable” accommodation under the ADA because he threatens the health and safety of the community. |
Case |
| NE - Endangered Species - Article 8. Nongame and Endangered Species Conservation Act | Neb. Rev. St. § 37-801 to 811 | NE ST § 37-801 to 811 | These statutes comprise the Nebraska Nongame and Endangered Species Conservation Act. Included are the definitions used in the Act, the legislative intent behind the Act, and the duty of the commission that oversees the Act. Violation of the Act constitutes a Class II misdemeanor. | Statute |
| TN - Dangerous dog - § 44-17-120. Death or serious injury; destruction of dogs | T. C. A. § 44-17-120 | TN ST § 44-17-120 | This Tennessee statute provides that any dog which attacks a human and causes death or serious injury may be destroyed upon the order of the circuit court where the attack occurred. The owner shall be given notice that if he or she does not appear before the court within five days and show cause why the dog should not be destroyed, then the order shall issue and the dog shall be destroyed. This statute also allows certain counties to make ordinances to petition a general sessions court to provide for the disposition of dangerous dogs and/or dogs causing death or serious injury to humans or other animals. | Statute |
| Desanctis v. Pritchard | 803 A.2d 230 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2002) | The trial court dismissed a couple's complaint asking the court to enforce a settlement agreement which provided for shared custody of the couple's dog. The appellate court upheld that decision, holding that the settlement agreement was void to the extent that it attempted to award visitation or shared custody with personal property. | Case | |
| Maine: An Act against Sodomy and Bestiality. | 1821 Me. Laws 5. | An Act concerning the punishment for Sodomy and Bestiality for Maine in 1821. | Statute |