Results
Displaying 1 - 10 of 6822
| Title | Citation | Alternate Citation | Summary | Type | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| AR - Ordinances - § 14-16-701. River and improvement district | A.C.A. § 14-16-701 | AR ST § 14-16-701 | This Arkansas statute provides that, upon the written request of the governing body of a suburban improvement district (as defined by statute), a county may by ordinance control and regulate dogs and cats within all or any part of the suburban improvement district. This statute does not elaborate on the confines of such ordinances, so it is assumed the subject matter is constrained only through preemption. | Statute | ||
| Strong v. United States | 5 F.3d 905 (1993) |
The appeal in this case does not contest the denial of a permit to conduct dolphin feedings cruises. The position of the plaintiffs-appellees is that the Secretary of Commerce has no authority to consider feeding to be a form of harassment or to regulate it. The court disagreed with the plaintiffs-appellees and found it clearly reasonable to restrict or prohibit the feeding of dolphins as a potential hazard to them. |
Case | |||
| AL - Sterilization - Chapter 9. Sterilization of Dogs and Cats. | Ala. Code 1975 § 3-9-1 to 4 | AL ST § 3-9-1 to 4 | These statutes require animal shelters, animal control agencies, and humane societies to sterilize dogs and cats acquired from other animal shelters, animal control agencies, and humane societies. For purposes of this statute, the term "sterilization" refers to the surgical removal of the reproductive organs of a dog or cat in order to render the animal unable to reproduce. Adoptive animals must be sterilized by a licensed veterinarian before the animal is released to the new owner, or the new owner must enter into a written agreement with the facility certifying that sterilization will be performed by a licensed veterinarian within 30 days after acquisition of the animal or within 30 days of the sexual maturity of the animal. | Statute | ||
| Animal Law Index Volume 16 |
|
Policy | ||||
| Boyer v. Seal | 553 So. 2d 827 (La. 1989) | In this case, plaintiff filed suit against her daughter under Civil Code article 2321 after her daughter’s cat accidentally tripped plaintiff causing injury to her wrist and back that required medication and hospitalization. Under Civil Code article 2321, plaintiff must show that the domestic animal created an “unreasonable risk of harm” and that any damage that occurred was a direct result of that harm. Additionally, the plaintiff does not need to show that the animal was acting aggressively or was inherently dangerous to collect damages under the code. The court held that plaintiff did not meet this burden of showing an “unreasonable risk of harm” because the cat “getting underfoot and accidentally tripping the plaintiff was not an unreasonable risk.” | Case | |||
| Van Kleek v. Farmers Insurance Exchange | 857 N.W.2d 297 (Neb., 2014) | 289 Neb. 730 (2014) | Plaintiff agreed to watch a couple’s dog while they were out of town. While plaintiff was caring for the dog, the animal bit her on her lower lip. Plaintiff filed a claim with the couple's insurance company. The insurance company rejected the claim because the plaintiff was also "insured," defined to include “any person ... legally responsible” for covered animals, and the policy excluded coverage for bodily injuries to "insureds." Plaintiff filed an action for declaratory judgment against the insurance company, seeking a determination that the policy covered her claim. The insurance company moved for summary judgment, and the district court sustained the insurance company's motion, reasoning that plaintiff was “legally responsible” for the dog because she fed and watered the animal and let it out of the house while the couple was away. The Supreme Court of Nebraska affirmed and held the insurance company was entitled to summary judgment. | Case | ||
| England - Greyhounds - The Welfare of Racing Greyhounds Regulations 2010 | 2010 No. 543 | These Regulations cover license requirements, including renewal, suspension and cancellation; and license conditions for the racing of greyhounds in England. Conditions include the attendance of a veterinary surgeon at every race, kennels at races, microchipping and race injury records. | Statute | |||
| TN - State animal - § 4-1-337. Official state pet | T. C. A. § 4-1-337 | TN ST § 4-1-337 | In 2014, Tennessee enacted a law that makes dogs and cats adopted from Tennessee animal shelters and rescues the official state pet. | Statute | ||
| State v. Murphy | 10 A.3d 697 (Me.,2010) | 2010 ME 140; 2010 WL 5353130 (Me.) |
Defendant appeals her convictions for assault of an officer, refusing to submit to arrest, criminal use of an electronic weapon, and two counts of cruelty to animals. In October 2009, a state police trooper was dispatched to defendant's home to investigate complaints that she was keeping animals despite a lifetime ban imposed after her 2004 animal cruelty conviction. The appellate found each of her five claims frivolous, and instead directed its inquiry as to whether the trial court correctly refused recusal at defendant's request. This court found that the trial court acted with "commendable restraint and responsible concern for Murphy's fundamental rights," especially in light of defendant's outbursts and provocations. |
Case | ||
| CA - Dangerous - California Dangerous Dog Statutes | West's Ann. Cal. Food & Agric. Code § 31601 - 31683; West's Ann. Cal. Civ. Code § 3342 - 3342.5; West's Ann. Cal. Health & Safety Code § 121685; West's Ann. Cal. Penal Code § 398 - 399.5 | CA FOOD & AG § 31601 - 31683; CA CIVIL § 3342 - 3342.5; CA HLTH & S § 121685;CA PENAL § 398 - 399.5 | This is the California statute for the rules and regulations regarding dangerous and/or vicious dogs. It defines what constitutes a dangerous and/or vicious dog, what is to be done with said dog(s), and provides a model provision for municipalities to follow. The other set of provisions contains the relevant dog bite law. California has strict liability for dog bites such that liability is imposed regardless of the former viciousness of the dog or the owner's knowledge of such viciousness. | Statute |