Results
Displaying 81 - 90 of 6638
| Title | Citation | Alternate Citation | Agency Citation | Summary | Type |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Map of State Dog Tethering Laws | As of 2023, about twenty-three (23) states have laws that limit or otherwise control how owners can tether their dogs. Tethering or chaining a dog under most state laws means that a person ties a dog with a rope or line to a stationary object. While the laws themselves vary from state to state, they do have several consistent features. Some laws that address tethering allow a dog to be tethered for a reasonable period of time. Other states include tethering as part of their anti-cruelty chapters. Indiana defines “neglect” as restraining an animal for more than a brief period in a manner that endangers the animal's life or health by the use of a rope, chain, or tether. Some states specify the manner in which a dog must be tethered or chained (i.e., that a tether must be at least 6 feet long or at least 3 times the length of the dog as measured from the tip of its nose to the base of its tail). This map gives links to these laws. | State map | |||
| CT - Transport, poultry - § 53-249. Cruelty to poultry | C. G. S. A. § 53-249 | CT ST § 53-249 | This statute makes it illegal to transport poultry in any manner that is not sanitary, warm, and ventilated. Poultry must receive "reasonable care" to "prevent unnecessary suffering." Violation of this provision is a class D misdemeanor. | Statute | |
| Kennedy v. Byas | 867 So.2d 1195 (D. Fla. 2004) | 29 Fla. L. Weekly D564, 2004 WL 393239 (D. Fla.) |
Plaintiff filed for a Writ of Certiorari requesting that his case be transfered from circuit court to county court. He was seeking damages for emotional distress, following alleged veterinary malpractice by the defendant. The Court held that Florida would not consider pets to be part of an actual family, that damages for emotional distress will not be permitted, and therefore the plaintiff did not have sufficient damages to met the circuit court jurisdictional amount. Petition denied.. |
Case | |
| QUATTROCCHIO WANDA S/ MALTRATO ANIMAL | QUATTROCCHIO WANDA S/ MALTRATO ANIMAL (Expte. Nº PEX 292565/21) | This is an animal cruelty case in which Wanda Quattrochio witnessed the defendant whipping the neighbor's dogs. Wanda recorded the events and filed a complaint about animal cruelty. The defendant was in charge of caring for the dogs while their owner was away. When the authorities arrived at the house to seize the dogs, they found six dogs in small dirty kennels, with unclean water and without food. After considering the testimony of witnesses and other evidence, the judge concluded that the defendant had violated articles 1-3 of the anti-cruelty law (Ley 14.346) and was found guilty of animal cruelty. In her analysis of the case, the judge stated that animals were not things or resources but rather living beings with the potential to be "subjects of life." | Case | ||
| Tilikum ex rel. People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, Inc. v. Sea World Parks & Entertainment, Inc. | 842 F.Supp.2d 1259 (S.D.Cal.,2012) | 2012 WL 399214 (S.D.Cal.,2012) |
Plaintiffs sued aquarium for declaratory and injunctive relief seeking a declaration that wild-captured orcas were being held in violation of the Thirteenth Amendment’s prohibition on slavery and involuntary servitude. The court dismissed the action, holding that Plaintiffs had no standing because the Thirteenth Amendment only applies to humans, and therefore, the court lacked subject matter jurisdiction. |
Case | |
| Moreno v. Hughes | 157 F.Supp.3d 687 (E.D. Mich. Jan. 19, 2016) | 2016 WL 212932 | This § 1983 action arises from the shooting of Plaintiffs' dog by Defendant Ronald Hughes, a Michigan Department of Corrections Absconder Recovery Unit Investigator. Defendant shot Plaintiffs' dog after entering her house by mistake to execute a fugitive warrant. This proceeding concerns a Motion in Limine filed by defendant seeking an order that plaintiffs are not entitled to noneconomic losses for the pain and suffering they sustained as a result of Defendant shooting their dog. Defendant contends that damage to personal property (including dogs) is limited to market value only. In rejecting Defendant's argument, this court found that it is "beyond dispute" that compensatory damages under § 1983 may include noneconomic injuries. A Plaintiff's interests in § 1983 actions contain different policy considerations than in traditional negligence claims. In fact, the court stated that, "[p]rohibiting recovery for emotional damages stemming from the loss of, or harm to, an animal caused by a constitutional violation would conflict with the compensatory and deterrence aims of § 1983." Additionally, applying Michigan law on the issue of emotional damages for injury to an animal would create inconsistency in civil rights actions since other states allow such damages. The court found that the determination of both compensatory and punitive damages must be left to the fact finder for each case, including this one. Defendant's Motion in Limine was denied. | Case | |
| AL - Veterinarian Issues - Professional Rules of Conduct | AL ADC 930-X-1-.10 | Ala. Admin. Code r. 930-X-1-.10 | The following regulations represent the rules for professional conduct expected from Alabama veterinarians, including grounds for disciplinary action. | Administrative | |
| CA - Mountain Lions - Chapter 10. Mountain Lions | West's Ann. Cal. Fish & G. Code § 4800 - 4810 | CA FISH & G § 4800 - 4810 | California statutes make mountain lions specially protected mammals. These sections make it unlawful to take, injure, possess, transport, import, or sell any mountain lion or any part or product thereof. Specific exceptions to these prohibitions include instances where a mountain lion is perceived to be an imminent threat to public health or safety or when it is perceived by to be an imminent threat to the survival of any threatened, endangered, candidate, or fully protected sheep species. | Statute | |
| IN RE: RONNIE FAIRCLOTH AND JR's AUTO & PARTS, INC. | 52 Agric. Dec. 171 (1993) | 1993 WL 151164 (U.S.D.A.) | Individual who owned auto parts company, and who kept exotic animals on premises (allegedly as pets), was exhibitor for purposes of Act, even though economic benefit to him from exhibiting animals to public was de minimis, because individual's activities were in commerce. | Case | |
| CO - Eggs - Article 21. Pt. 2. Confinement of Egg Laying Hens | C.R.S.A. § 35-21-201 - 209 | This section of Colorado law regulates the confinement of egg-laying hens in the state. Under these laws, egg-laying hens must be confined in conditions that allow them at least one square foot of usable floor space. Certain exceptions apply, such as for slaughter or veterinary purposes. Violators of these laws may be subjected to a civil penalty of no more than one thousand dollars. | Statute |