|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.
|AK - Veterinary - Chapter 98. Veterinarians.||AS § 08.98.010 to 250||AK ST § 08.98.010 to 250||These are the state's veterinary practice laws. Among the provisions include licensing requirements, laws concerning the state veterinary board, veterinary records laws, and the laws governing disciplinary actions for impaired or incompetent practitioners.||Statute|
|AK - Veterinary immunity - § 09.65.097. Civil liability for emergency veterinary care||AS § 09.65.097||AK ST § 09.65.097||This Alaska law provides that a licensed veterinarian who renders emergency care to an injured or ill animal that reasonably appears to need emergency care to avoid serious harm or death is not liable for civil damages as a result of an act or omission in rendering emergency aid. This section does not apply to service rendered at the request of an owner of the animal and does not preclude liability for civil damages as a result of gross negligence or reckless or intentional misconduct.||Statute|
|AK - Zoo - § 09.65.180. Civil liability of zoos||AS § 09.65.180||AK ST § 09.65.180||The Alaska law provides that, except as provided in (b), a person who owns or operates a zoo is strictly liable for injury to a person or property if the injury is caused by an animal owned by or in the custody of the zoo.||Statute|
|AKERS v. SELLERS||54 N.E.2d 779 (Ind.App.1944)||114 Ind.App. 660 (1944)||
This Indiana case involves an action in replevin by John W. Akers against his former wife, Stella Sellers. The controversy at issue was ownership and possession of a Boston bull terrier dog. At the time of the divorce decree, the dog was not part of the property division and was instead left at the marriage domicile in custody of the former wife. Appellant-Akers claimed that legal title and the dog's best interests rested with him and unsuccessfully brought a suit in replevin in the lower court. On appeal, this Court held that there was no sufficient evidence to overturn the lower court's determination. The judgment was affirmed.
|Akron ex rel. Christman-Resch v. Akron||825 N.E.2d 189 (Ohio, 2005)||159 Ohio App.3d 673 (2005)||
City of Akron, Ohio cat owners filed suit against city, its mayor, and city council president, seeking declaratory judgment that new city code sections, relating to the trapping and euthanization of free-roaming cats, were unconstitutional. After the Court of Common Pleas, Summit County granted summary judgment to defendants, the cat owners appealed. The Court of Appeals held that the city's ordinances relating to the trapping and euthanization of free-roaming cats did not violate cat owners' substantive due process rights. Further, the ordinances which allowed a cat to be euthanized after three business days following the date of impoundment, did not violate cat owners' procedural due process rights or right to equal protection. Finally, the ordinances, which allowed city to seize free-roaming cats in response to complaints, did not violate the Fourth Amendment and city's actions were covered by sovereign immunity.
|AL - Importation, wildlife - 220-2-.26. Restrictions On Possession, Sale, Importation And/Or Release Of Certain Animals And||AL ADC 220-2-.26; AL ADC 220-2-.26||
This Alabama regulation provides that no person, firm, corporation, partnership, or association shall possess, sell, offer for sale, import, or bring into the state any of the listed species including piranha, mongoose, non-native coyote, fox, black bear, and others. It is also unlawful for any person to have in possession any live, protected wild bird or wild animal or live embryo, eggs, or sperm of these protected wild birds or animals.
|AL - Animal Shelters - § 3-10-1 to § 3-10-5||Ala. Code 1975 § 3-10-1 to § 3-10-5||This statute defines an animal shelter and describes a monthly report that each animal shelter must compile. Among other things, contents of the report include number of strays, adoptions, health-related issues, and costs incurred by the shelter. This report must be made available to the public, though a reasonable fee is appropriate. There is no cause of action created by this statute.||Statute|
|AL - Assistance Animals - Assistance Animal/Guide Dog Laws||Ala.Code 1975 § § 21-7-1 - 10; 3-1-7; § 32-5A-220; § 24-8A-1 - 5||AL ST § 21-7-1 - 10; § 3-1-7; § 32-5A-220; § 24-8A-1 - 5||The following statutes comprise the state's relevant service animal, assistance animal, and guide dog laws.||Statute|
|AL - Bear Protection - Legislative findings. Prohibited activities; exceptions; applicability; penalties.||Ala. Code 1975 § 9-11-480 - 481||AL ST § 9-11-480 to 481||
These Alabama statutes were signed into law in 2001. The laws declare that black bears are a species that require special protection in the state and make it illegal to hunt, wound, injure, kill, trap, collect, or capture a black bear, or to attempt to engage in that conduct during the closed season for black bear. It also makes it illegal to sell or purchase bear parts.