Results

Displaying 91 - 100 of 6638
Title Citation Alternate Citation Summary Type
IA - Assistance Animals - Assistance Animal/Guide Dog Laws I. C. A. § 216C.1 - 12; 216.8B, 216.8C; 321.333 IA ST § 216C.1 - 12; 216.8B; 216.8C; 321.333 The following statutes comprise the state's relevant service and assistance animal laws. Statute
Lieberman v. Powers 873 N.E.2d 803 (Mass.App.Ct., 2007) 70 Mass.App.Ct. 238 (2007), 2007 WL 2768668 (Mass.App.Ct.)

In this Massachusetts case, Noah Lieberman sustained injuries when he was scratched and bitten by a cat while visiting a “cat lounge” at the Sheldon branch animal shelter, which was operated by the Animal Rescue League of Boston (ARL). Plaintiff alleged that his injuries resulted from the defendants' negligent design and maintenance of the cat lounge. The Appeals Court of Massachusetts, Suffolk reversed the lower court's grant of summary judgment for defendants. Specifically, the court found that the plaintiff has provided sufficient evidence, in the form of expert opinion, that an ordinarily prudent person in the circumstances of this case-which include the defendants' knowledge regarding the behavior (and potential for aggression) of cats-would have taken additional steps to ensure the safety of visitors to the cat lounge. At the very least, the defendants should have foreseen that the small size of the room, as well as the set-up (one food bowl, one litter box, two perches) and unsupervised operation of the cat lounge was such that it was more likely than not to increase stress in cats, which in turn made it more likely than not that the cats would behave aggressively.

Case
In re: SAMUEL ZIMMERMAN 56 Agric. Dec. 1419 (1997) 1997 WL 730380 (U.S.D.A.) Proof of respondent's willful violations of Animal Welfare Act and regulations and standards is not necessary for revocation or suspension of respondent's license where respondent received notice in writing of facts or conduct that might warrant suspension or revocation of his license, and respondent had opportunity to achieve compliance with requirements of Act and regulations and standards. Case
Laws Banning Cosmetics Testing on Animals This map contains links to the twelve (12) states that ban cosmetics testing on animals as of 2024. These laws generally prohibit manufacturers from importing or selling cosmetic products where the manufacturer knew or reasonably should have known that animal testing was conducted or contracted by or on behalf of the manufacturer or any supplier of the manufacturer. These laws have some exceptions and typically include civil remedies for violation. State map
In re: JOHN D. DAVENPORT, d/b/a KING ROYAL CIRCUS. 57 Agric. Dec. 189 (U.S.D.A. May 18, 1998) 1998 WL 300096 Since 7 USCS § 2140 requires that exhibitors make their records identifying animals available for inspection at all reasonable times, it is not unreasonable to expect that records be with animals as they are transported Case
MA - Leash - § 174B. Restraint of dogs in public highway rest areas; penalty M.G.L.A. 140 § 174B MA ST 140 § 174B This Massachusetts law states that whoever is the owner or keeper of a dog shall restrain said dog by a chain or leash when in an officially designated public highway rest area. Whoever violates the provisions of this section shall be punished by a fine of not more than $100. Statute
US - Exotic Birds - Wild Exotic Bird Conservation Act 16 USC 4901 - 4916 The Wild Exotic Bird Conservation Act addresses the population threat to non-indigenous wild birds due to the demand the from U.S. as the number one importer of exotic birds (e.g., the "pet" bird trade). Exceptions under the statute include qualified breeding facilities, scientific or zoological study, and people returning the U.S. who have been out of the country for more than a year (limited to two birds). Statute
Rowlette v. Paul 466 S.E.2d 37 (Ga. 1995) 219 Ga.App. 597 (Ga. 1995) This Georgia case involved a dog bite to a person who went to went to the Pauls' house in order to verify and update information for the Oglethorpe County Tax Assessor's Office.  The court held that in the absence of any evidence showing that the owners of a dog had knowledge, prior to a mauling incident, that their dog had ever bitten another human being, the owners of the dog were not liable to the victim even though the dog's presence on the premises where the incident occurred was in violation of the county leash law.  In order to support an action for damages under OCGA § 51-2-7, it is necessary to show that the dog was vicious or dangerous and that the owner had knowledge of this fact. Case
Prindable v. Association of Apartment Owners of 2987 Kalakaua 304 F.Supp.2d 1245 (D. Hawaii, 2003)

Condominium resident filed a complaint alleging the housing authority violated the Federal Fair Housing Amendments Act by failing to waive the "no pets" as a reasonable accommodation for his handicap. The court held that where the primary handicap is mental or emotional in nature, an animal "must be peculiarly suited to ameliorate the unique problems of the mentally disabled," and granted the housing authority's motion for summary judgment on the issue of the housing authority's failure to make a reasonable accommodation under the FHA.

Case
Animal Legal Defense Fund v. Mendes 72 Cal.Rptr.3d 553 (Cal.App. 5 Dist., 2008) 08 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 1999, 160 Cal.App.4th 136, 2008 WL 400393 (Cal.App. 5 Dist.)

Appellants ALDF asserted causes of action for violation of Penal Code section 597t for confining calves without an “adequate exercise area,” and for commission of unfair business practices under Business and Professions Code section 17200 et seq. In affirming the lower court's decision to dismiss the action, this court held that there is no private cause of action pursuant to Penal Code section 597t under the present circumstances, and none of the appellants have shown an ability to allege any facts of economic injury.

Case

Pages