Results
| Title | Citation | Alternate Citation | Agency Citation | Summary | Type | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| FL - Cruelty, Humane Slaughter - Consolidated Cruelty Statutes/Humane Slaughter Laws | West's F. S. A. § 828.01 - 828.43; West's F. S. A. § 768.139 | FL ST 828.01 - 828.43; FL ST § 768.139; FL ST § 843.19 | This section comprises the Florida anti-cruelty laws. Under this section, the word "animal" includes every living dumb creature. The misdemeanor violation of animal cruelty (section 828.12) occurs when a person unnecessarily overloads, overdrives, torments, deprives of necessary sustenance or shelter, or unnecessarily mutilates, or kills any animal, or carries in or upon any vehicle, any animal in a cruel or inhumane manner. A person who intentionally commits an act to any animal, or a person who owns or has the custody or control of any animal and fails to act, which results in the cruel death, or excessive or repeated infliction of unnecessary pain or suffering is guilty of a felony of the third degree. Psychiatric or psychological counseling are also mandatory for convicted offenders. The section also criminalizes animal abandonment and neglect as well as animal fighting. | Statute | ||||||||
| IN - Breeders - Rule 1. Commercial Dog Breeder and Broker Registration | Ind. Admin. Code tit. 345, r. 14-1-1 to 4 | 345 IAC 13-1-1 to 4 | This set of Indiana rules provides the rules for licensing and registration of commercial dog brokers and breeders. | Administrative | ||||||||
| Nikolic v. Seidenberg | 610 N.E.2d 177 (Ill. App. Ct. 1993) |
When the pet owner adopted a dog, she signed a contract agreeing to have her dog spayed at the vet's facility and to return the dog to the vet if it was sick. For days after the surgery the dog was ill so the other vet performed exploratory surgery and repaired a cut in the dog's intestine. The pet owner filed an action to recover the medical expenses and the lower court granted the vet's motion to dismiss. The reviewing court held that the language in the contract was not sufficiently clear and explicit to exculpate the vet from negligence because the vet was not a party to the contract and thus not a direct beneficiary of the contract. |
Case | |||||||||
| TX - Service animals - § 434.029. Service Dog Pilot Program for Certain Veterans | V.T.C.A., Government Code § 434.029 | TX GOVT § 434.029 | The commission by rule shall establish a pilot program for veterans to assist in mitigating the symptoms of military service-related post-traumatic stress disorder, traumatic brain injury, or military sexual trauma through the provision of a service dog. | Statute | ||||||||
| Friends of Animals v. Ashe | 808 F.3d 900 (D.C. Cir. 2015) | 2015 WL 9286948 (D.C. Cir. Dec. 22, 2015) | Friends of Animals, a non-profit animal advocacy organization, filed suit against the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service ("the Service") in 2013, after the Service issued no initial or final determinations for 39 species of sturgeon the organization petitioned as endangered or threatened. The Endangered Species Act (ESA) requires that the Service must make a determination within 90 days for an initial determination or 12 months for a final determination after a petition is received from an interested party. However, there is also a provision in the ESA that the plaintiff must give the Service 60-days notice before filing suit. The District Court held that Friends of Animals did not give the Service adequate notice before filing suit and dismissed the complaint. On appeal, this court agreed, finding that Friends of Animals "did not wait until after the issuance of the positive initial determinations to provide 60 days' notice of the allegedly overdue final determinations." In dicta, the Court noted that "[t]he Service's approach may not be the most efficient," but the deadlines are mandatory in the statutes. Thus, its suit to compel the final determination on the listings was barred and the judgment of the District Court was affirmed. | Case | ||||||||
| MA - Exotic pets - 9.01: Exemption List | 321 MA ADC 9.01 | 321 CMR 9.01 | This section exempts some animals from Massachusetts' exotic pet ban. The animals that have been added to this license-exemption list include boas and pythons, skinks, parrots, hedgehogs, chinchillas, and flying squirrels, among others. | Administrative | ||||||||
| IN - Dog - Consolidated Dog Laws | I.C. 15-17-6-1 - 14; 25-38.1-4-8 ; 15-20-2-1 - 7; 15-17-21-1; 6-9-39-1 - 9; 35-46-3-15; 15-20-3-1 - 4; 14-22-11-1; 14-8-2-89 | IN ST 15-17-6-1 - 14; 25-38.1-4-8 ; 15-20-2-1 - 7; 6-9-39-1 - 9; 35-46-3-15; 15-20-3-1 - 4 ; 14-22-11-1; 14-8-2-89; 15-17-21-1 | These Indiana statutes comprise the state's dog laws. Included are provisions on rabies, liability of owners for dog bites or damage to livestock, and taxation and registration laws, among others. | Statute | ||||||||
| CO - Dangerous Dog- Article 9. Offenses Against Public Peace, Order, and Decency. | C. R. S. A. § 18-9-204.5; C. R. S. A. § 35-42-115 | CO ST § 18-9-204.5; CO ST § 35-42-115 | This Colorado statute defines a "dangerous dog" as one that has inflicted bodily or serious bodily injury upon or has caused the death of a person or domestic animal; or has demonstrated tendencies that would cause a reasonable person to believe that the dog may inflict injury upon or cause the death of any person or domestic animal; or has engaged in or been trained for animal fighting as described by statute. Owners found guilty under the provisions will be subject to misdemeanor penalties if their dogs cause bodily injury or felonies if their dogs cause the death of a person. Section 35-42-115 mandates that the bureau create a a statewide dangerous dog registry consisting of a database of information concerning microchip types and placement by veterinarians and licensed shelters in dangerous dogs. | Statute | ||||||||
| United States of America v. Victor Bernal and Eduardo Berges | 90 F.3d 465 (11th Cir. 1996) |
Victor Bernal and Eduardo Berges were convicted of various crimes in connection with an attempt to export two endangered primates--an orangutan and a gorilla--from the United States to Mexico in violation of the Lacey Act Amendments of 1981 and the Endangered Species Act of 1973. While the main issue before the court was a downward departure in sentencing guidelines, the court found the purpose of the Lacey Act is protect those species whose continued existence is presently threatened by gradually drying up international market for endangered species, thus reducing the poaching of those species in their native countries. |
Case | |||||||||
| Derecho Animal Volume 5 Núm 2 |
|
Policy |