Results
| Title | Citation | Alternate Citation | Agency Citation | Summary | Type |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| CA - Facility - § 868.4. Authorization for therapy or facility dogs to accompany certain witnesses in criminal | West's Ann.Cal.Penal Code § 868.4 | This law, effective in 2018, allows either party in a criminal or juvenile hearing to ask the court for approval to bring a therapy or facility dog for a child witness in a court proceeding involving any serious felony or any other victim who is entitled to a support person. Before a therapy or facility dog may be used, the party seeking its use must file a motion with the court that includes: (1) the training or credentials of the therapy or facility dog; (2) the training of the therapy or facility dog handler; and (3) facts justifying that the presence of the therapy or facility dog may reduce anxiety or otherwise be helpful to the witness while testifying. The court may grant the motion unless it finds the use of the therapy or facility dog would cause undue prejudice or be unduly disruptive to the court. Appropriate measures must be taken to assure that the presence of the therapy or facility dog as unobtrusive and nondisruptive as possible. | Statute | ||
| Concerned Dog Owners of California v. City of Los Angeles | 123 Cal.Rptr.3d 774 (Cal.App.2 Dist., 2011) | 194 Cal.App.4th 1219 (2011); 2011 WL 1601919 (Cal.App.2 Dist., 2011) |
Dog owners mounted a constitutional challenge to a Los Angeles municipal ordinance that required all dogs and cats within the city to be sterilized. The Court of Appeal held that the ordinance did not violate the owners’ freedom of association rights, free speech rights. or equal protection rights. The court held that it was not unconstitutionally vague, was not outside of the city's police powers, did not vest unfettered discretion in city officials, did not constitute an unconstitutional prior restraint or an unconstitutional taking. Finally, the law did not violate individual liberties under the California Constitution. |
Case | |
| England - Dogs - The Docking of Working Dogs' Tails (England) Regulations 2007 | 2007 No. 1120 |
These Regulations exempt hunt, spaniel and terrier breeds from the tail docking prohibition under the Animal Welfare Act 2006, provided that certain conditions are met. Tail docking must be carried out by a veterinary surgeon, and not past 5 days old. |
Statute | ||
| US - Critical Habitat - Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Establishment of a Nonessential Experimental Population f | 50 CFR Part 17, RIN 1018-AH44, 2005 WL 779150 (F.R.) |
This final rule is a collaborative effort between the FWS and the states of Tennessee and Alabama and Conservation Fisheries, Inc. to reintroduce the boulder darter ( Etheostoma wapiti ) , an endangered fish, and the spotfin chub ( Cyprinella (= Hybopsis ) monacha ) , a threatened fish to its historical habitat in Lauderdale County Alabama and Lawrence County, Tennessee. This rule provides for Non-essential Experimental Populations (NEP) within the designated area and it establishes limited allowable legal takings in that area. Additionally, this rule also changes the scientific name of the spotfin chub from Cyprinella (= Hybopsis ) monacha to Erimonax monachus , to reflect a recent change in the scientific literature. |
Administrative | ||
| RI - Ordinances - § 4-13-1.1. Towns of Portsmouth, West Warwick, and Middletown and city of Woonsocket--Vicious dog ordinance | Gen. Laws, 1956, § 4-13-1.1 | RI ST § 4-13-1.1 | This Rhode Island statute provides that the town councils of the towns of Portsmouth, West Warwick and Middletown may, by ordinance, provide that the owner or keeper of any dog that assaults any person shall be fined an amount not less than one hundred dollars ($100) nor more than two hundred dollars. The investigation must prove that the dog was off the owner's property or that the assault was the result of owner negligence. It further provides that, in the city of Woonsocket, an owner shall not be declared negligent if an injury is sustained by a person who was committing a trespass or other tort upon the owner's premises or was teasing, tormenting, provoking, abusing or assaulting the dog or was committing or attempting to commit a crime. | Statute | |
| MT - Exotic wildlife - Part 7. Importation, Introduction, and Transplantation of Wildlife | MCA 87-5-701 to 87-5-725 | MT ST 87-5-701 to 87-5-725 | These Montana statutes control the importation, introduction, and transplantation of exotic wildlife into the state. The importation of any wildlife is prohibited unless the species poses no threat of harm to native wildlife and plants or to agricultural production and that the introduction has significant public benefits. Violations may result in a fine or imprisonment. | Statute | |
| Ferguson v. Birchmount Boarding Kennels Ltd. | 2006 CarswellOnt 399 | 207 O.A.C. 98, 79 O.R. (3d) 681 |
In August 2002, plaintiffs’ dog escaped while being exercised at defendant-kennel’s boarding facility. Birchmount appeals from the judgment claiming the court applied the wrong standard of care, and that the court erred in law in awarding the plaintiffs damages for pain and suffering. The reviewing court found that the evidence would likely have led to the same conclusion regardless of whether a “bailment” standard was used. Further, this court was satisfied that the trial judge did not err in law or in fact in making findings and in awarding general damages where there was evidence that the plaintiffs experienced pain and suffering upon learning of the dog’s escape. |
Case | |
| Vanater v. Village of South Point | 717 F. Supp. 1236 (D. Ohio 1989) |
Village criminal ordinance, which prohibited the owning or harboring of pit bull terriers or other vicious dogs within village limits, was not overbroad, even though identification of a "pit bull" may be difficult in some situations, as there are methods to determine with sufficient certainty whether dog is a "pit bull.". |
Case | ||
| Pet Planning Issues |
Divorce and Custody Issues (2020) |
Policy | |||
| In re Marriage of Berger and Ognibene-Berger | (Decisions Without Published Opinions) 834 N.W.2d 82 (Table) (2013) | (unpublished) 2013 WL 1749799 | Joe Berger appeals from the provisions of the decree of divorce from Cira Berger, including the court’s grant of Max, the family golden retriever, to Cira. He argues that it would be more equitable to grant him ownership of Max because Cira already owns another dog, Sophie, and the parties’ son, who lives with Joe, is very attached to Max. The district court made their decision based on which party would be more available to care for the dog. This court affirms that decision, citing evidence that Max is licensed to Cira, only Cira’s name is in the dog’s ‘GEO tracker’ device, and Cira got Max medical attention even when Max was in Joe’s care. The court specified that they need not determine a pet's best interests when deciding custody. | Case |