|Title||Citation||Alternate Citation||Agency Citation||Summary||Type|
|AK - Unalaska - Title 12: Animal Control (Chapter: 12.04: Animal Control)||Unalaska Code of Ordinances §§ 12.04.020, 12.04.150, 12.04.160||
Under this Unalaska, Alaska ordinance, a person who owns a seeing-eye dog, a hearing aid dog, or other aid dog is exempt from the license fees. Furthermore, this ordinance exempts such dogs from provisions that prohibit animals from entering certain places as long as the owner carries proper documentation certified by a recognized aid dog institution.
|Texas Attorney General Opinion No. JC-0048||Tex. Atty. Gen. Op. JC-0048||
Texas Attorney General Opinion regarding the issue of whether city ordinances are preempted by statutes that govern the treatment of animals. Specifically, the opinion discusses pigeon shoots. The opinion emphasizes that organized pigeon shoots are prohibited under Texas cruelty laws but that present wildlife laws allow the killing of feral pigeons.
|Fraudulent Service Dogs||The above map highlights the states that have laws against the use of fraudulent service dogs. As of 2021, there are 33 states with what can be termed true bans on the fraudulent representation of pets as service animals. States without these laws may have laws that prohibit the fraudulent representation of assistance animals in housing, but those laws are not included on this map and can be found here. In all states, violation of these laws are misdemeanor offenses or civil infractions and some states require community service with an organization that serves the disabled as part of sentencing upon conviction.||State map|
|MI - Lien - 570.185. Lien of mechanic, artisan, or tradesman for manufacture of goods or keeping or care of animals||M.C.L.A. 570.185||MI ST 570.185||This Michigan law states that when a person delivers any horse, mule, neat cattle, sheep, or swine to be kept or cared for to another person, that person shall have a lien thereon for the keeping and care of such animals, and may retain possession of the same until such charges are paid.||Statute|
|PA - Dog - § 550. General immunity from noise||3 P.S. § 550||PA ST 3 P.S. § 550||This Pennsylvania statute provides that all owners and operators of dog training and special retriever training areas licensed by the Pennsylvania Game Commission shall be exempt and immune from any civil action or criminal prosecution in any manner relating to noise provided they were and remain in compliance with any applicable noise control laws or ordinances at the time the permit for establishment of the training area was authorized.||Statute|
|MS - Hunting - § 49-7-68. Computer-assisted remote hunting||Miss. Code Ann. § 49-7-68||MS ST § 49-7-68||This Mississippi law makes it a Class I offense a person to engage in computer-assisted remote hunting. It is also unlawful for a person to provide or operate a facility for computer-assisted remote hunting if the game animal or bird being hunted is located in this state.||Statute|
|SuiÁa||impetraram este HABEAS CORPUS REPRESSIVO, em favor da chimpanzÈ "SuiÁa" (nome cientifico anthropopithecus troglodytes), macaca que se encontra enjaulada no Parque Zoobot‚nico Get˙lio Vargas (Jardim ZoolÛgico de Salvador), situado na Av. Ademar de Barros||Case|
|Lockett v. Hill||51 P.3d 5 (Or.App.,2002)||182 Or.App. 377 (Or.App.,2002)||
In this Oregon case, plaintiff sued defendant after defendant's pit bulls mauled plaintiff's cat to death while they were running loose on plaintiff's property. The trial court found that defendant was negligent and awarded plaintiffs $1,000 in compensatory damages but denied plaintiffs' claims for negligent infliction of emotional distress and loss of companionship. Plaintiff sought appeal of the trial court's denial of damages for negligent infliction of emotional distress (NIED) and loss of companionship. The appellate court affirmed, holding that the cat owner was not entitled to recover damages for emotional distress.
|TN - Wildlife - Chapter 1660-01-15 Rules and Regulations for Animal Importation.||TN ADC 1660-01-15-.01, .02||Tenn. Comp. R. & Regs. 1660-01-15-.01 to .02||These Tennessee regulations outline the guidelines for importing any live wild animal species obtained from outside the State of Tennessee.||Administrative|
|In re: Lee Marvin Greenly||2012 WL 3877414 (U.S.D.A. Aug. 22, 2012)||Respondent Lee Marvin Greenly is an individual who operates what he describes as a photographic educational game farm along the scenic Kettle River near Sandstone, Minnesota. He is a licensed exhibitor under the Animal Welfare Act. A USDA complaint alleged that between March 14, 2006 and October 19, 2010 the Respondents committed some thirty-seven separate violations of the Act and its Regulationsincluding (a) failing to provide adequate veterinary care to their animals; (b) failing to establish a mechanism for communicating with the veterinarian; (c) failing to construct structurally sound housing facilities; (d) failing to timely remove and dispose of food waste; (e) failing to appropriately store food; (f) failing to adequately enclose outdoor facilities; (g) failing to make, keep and maintain adequate and appropriate records; (h) failing to provide environmental enrichment for the animals; (i) failing to allow access for unannounced inspections of the facility, the animals and records; (j) failing to handle animals so as to avoid trauma or physical harm; and (k) failing to handle animals so that there was minimal risk to the public and the animals by permitting direct contact between dangerous animals and members of the public, resulting in injuries to the public on three occasions, death to a neighbor's pet, and mandatory euthanization of one of the animals following one incident. In this order, an Administrative Law Judge issued a cease and desist order, as well as revoked Respondent’s license due to the violations.||Case|