Results
| Title | Citation | Alternate Citation | Summary | Type |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| AR - Racing - Arkansas Greyhound Racing Law | A.C.A. §§ 23-111-101 to 23-111-518 | AR ST §§ 23-111-101 to 23-111-518 | This Act gives the Arkansas Racing Commission sole jurisdiction over the business and the sport of greyhound racing. Greyhound racing may only be conducted in the State of Arkansas by a franchise that is approved by the Arkansas Racing Commission. A franchise must be a corporation organized under the state of Arkansas. A franchise may not be a individual, partnerships, associations, or trusts. A franchise may not be granted by the Commission until it is authorized by a majority of the qualified electors within the county in which the franchise intends to operate. The voters will be able to choose whether to allow or reject the Racing Commission's grant to the franchise to conduct greyhound racing. Each county is only allowed to have one franchise conducting greyhound racing. | Statute |
| CT - Cruelty - § 54-86n. Appointment of advocate in proceeding re the welfare or custody of a cat or dog. | C.G.S.A. § 54-86n | CT ST § 54-86n | This 2016 law states that, in a cruelty or welfare proceedings, the court may order, upon its own initiative or upon request of a party or counsel for a party, that a separate advocate be appointed to represent the interests of justice. That advocate can monitor the case and supply the court with information about the welfare of the cat or dog. The Department of Agriculture shall maintain a list of attorneys with knowledge of animal issues and the legal system and a list of law schools that have students, or anticipate having students, with an interest in animal issues and the legal system. Such attorneys and law students shall be eligible to serve on a voluntary basis as advocates under this section. | Statute |
| IA - Ordinances - Chapter 351. Dogs and Other Animals. | I. C. A. § 351.41 | IA ST § 351.41 | This Iowa state provides that the chapter relating to state dogs running at large laws does not limit the power of any city or county to prohibit dogs and other animals from running at large, whether or not they have been vaccinated for rabies, and does not limit the power of any city or county to provide additional measures for the restriction of dogs and other animals for the control of rabies and for other purposes. | Statute |
| CA - Pet Shop - § 597l. List providing what is unlawful for a pet shop operator to fail to do; information to be provided to buy | West's Ann. Cal. Penal Code § 597l | CA PENAL § 597l | This statute requires operators of pet shops to provide sanitary conditions, proper heating and ventilation, adequate nutrition and space for a pet animal. Sellers must provide buyers with written recommendations for the generally accepted standards of care, including information on housing and feeding of the animal. Violations of the provisions constitute a misdemeanor. | Statute |
| MT - Hunting - Chapter 4. Commercial Activities. | MCA 87-4-401 to 87-4-433 | MT ST 87-4-401 to 87-4-433 | In Montana, a person may not operate an alternative livestock ranch without a license. Such ranches are defined as enclosed land upon which animals such as privately owned caribou, white-tailed deer, etc, are kept for purposes of obtaining, rearing in captivity, keeping, or selling. The rancher has reporting requirements. Failure to comply with provisions of the act may result in revocation of the license. | Statute |
| Kringle v. Elliott | 301 Ga.App. 1, 686 S.E.2d 665 (Ga.App.,2009) | 2009 WL 3790367 (Ga.App.), 09 FCDR 3721 |
The plaintiff, on behalf of her then seven-year-old son, brought an action against the defendant Elliot for injuries the child sustained resulting from a bite by defendant's golden retriever. The trial court granted the defendant's motion for a directed verdict reasoning that because this was the dog's first bite of a human, there was there was no cause of action under Georgia's “first bite” rule. The appellate court found that the excluded evidence did not indicate the owner had any reason to suspect that the dog had a propensity to bite and thus, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in granting defendant's motion or directing a verdict. |
Case |
| McAdams v. Faulk (unpublished) | Not Reported in S.W.3d, 2002 WL 700956 (Ark.App.) |
Dog owner brought dog to veterinarian’s office where someone choked the dog, causing injuries that led to its death. The Court of Appeals held that the owner stated a veterinary malpractice claim against veterinarian because owner alleged that dog was choked while in veterinarian's care, that veterinarian failed to diagnose neck injury that proved fatal, performed unnecessary treatment out of greed, and refused to provide owner with medical explanation of dog's condition and death, all in violation of the veterinary licensing statute. The Court also held that violating the cruelty to animals statute was evidence of negligence, and that damages included economic loss, compensation for mental anguish, including future anguish. and punitive damages. |
Case | |
| Western Watersheds Project v. Hall | Slip Copy, 2007 WL 2790404 (D.Idaho) |
Plaintiff Western Watersheds Project filed the instant action challenging the “90-Day Finding” issued by the Defendants United States Fish and Wildlife Service that denied protection of the Interior Mountain Quail as endangered or threatened under the Endangered Species Act. The Service determined that the Petition had failed to provide information demonstrating that the Interior Mountain Quail population is discrete under the ESA. The District Court stated that, in order to qualify as a DPS, a population must “be both discrete and significant.” The court found that the Service's conclusion appropriately determined that this discreteness standard was not met and it provided a rational basis for concluding the Petition had failed to provide evidence of a marked separation between the populations of the same taxon. |
Case | |
| US - Importation - Fraud and False Statements | 18 USC § 1001 | Under this federal law, fraudulent statements, orally or in writing, may result in a fine and or imprisonment. | Statute | |
| AL - Wildlife, Captive - Article 11. Possession of Wildlife for Public Exhibition Purposes. | Ala. Code 1975 § 9-11-320 - 328 | AL ST § 9-11-320 to 328 | This set of Alabama laws relates to the possession of captive wildlife. The Commissioner of Conservation and Natural Resources may issue an annual permit to possess wildlife for public exhibition to a person qualified by education or experience in the care and treatment of wildlife at at a cost of $25.00. Violation of any provision of the article results in a fine of not more than $500.00, imprisonment for not more than three months, or both. Notably, the provisions of the article do not apply to any municipal, county, state or other publicly owned zoo or wildlife exhibit, privately owned traveling zoo or circus or pet shop. | Statute |