|Title||Citation||Alternate Citation||Agency Citation||Summary||Type|
|CO - Veterinary - Veterinary Practice Code||C. R. S. A. § 12-64-101 to 127||CO ST § 12-64-101 to 127||
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.
|Canada - Newfoundland and Labrador Statutes - Dog Act(Repealed)||R.S.N. 1990, c. D-26, s. 1 - 15(2)(Repealed)||
This act was replaced by the Animal Health and Protection Act in 2010. This set of laws comprises the Newfoundland and Labrador Dog Act. Under the Act, an owner of a dog must keep it safely tethered or penned up at all times unless on a leash, herding sheep, or hunting with an owner. The minister may in writing authorize a person to destroy dogs found at large in the province. Notably, a person shall not bring into or keep on the island a dog either wholly or partly of the breed native to Labrador, commonly known as Eskimo or Husky, unless he or she has obtained a permit. A person who contravenes this Act or accompanying regulations is guilty of an offence.
|Municipal Ordinances and Animals||Policy|
|Peterson v. Eichhorn||189 P.3d 615 (Mont., 2008)||2008 MT 250, 2008 WL 2738453 (Mont.)||
In this Montana case, the plaintiff brought claims for negligence, strict liability for abnormally dangerous domestic animal, and punitive damages against the defendant horse owner. She alleged that defendant's horse bit her while she was on land defendant used for pasturing the horse that adjoined her land. After the lower court granted summary judgment to the defendant, the plaintiff appealed. The Supreme Court held that even though the Montana Supreme Court has not adopted the provision of the Second Restatement of Torts regarding an animal owner's strict liability for injury caused by an abnormally dangerous domestic animal, this was not the test case to do it. The court found that Peterson failed to produce any evidence or legal authority that the horse's biting constituted a “dangerous propensity abnormal to her class” to bring her under the Restatement's strict liability.
|People v. Koogan||256 A.D. 1078 (N.Y. App. Div. 1939)||11 N.Y.S.2d 49 (N.Y. App. Div. 1939)||
Defendant was guilty of cruelty to animals for allowing a horse to be worked he knew was in poor condition.
|ME - Dog, Dangerous - Maine Dangerous Dog Laws||7 M. R. S. A. § 3951 - 3953; 7 M. R. S. A. § 3961 - 3964; 7 M. R. S. A. § 3907||ME ST T. 7 § 3951 - 3953; ME ST T. 7 § 3961 - 3964; ME ST T.7 § 3907||This Maine statutory sections outlines the state's dangerous dog laws. It first provides that any person may lawfully kill a dog if necessary to protect that person, another person or a domesticated animal during the course of a sudden, unprovoked assault. A person who owns or keeps a dangerous dog commits a civil violation for which the court shall adjudge a fine of not less than $250 and not more than $1,000. The dog may be ordered to be muzzled, or euthanized if it has killed, maimed or inflicted serious bodily injury upon a person or has a history of a prior assault. Notably, if a dog whose owner refuses or neglects to comply with the order wounds any person by a sudden assault or wounds or kills any domestic animal, the owner shall pay the person injured treble damages and costs to be recovered by a civil action. The statute sets out the specific procedure for declaring a dog dangerous and the statutory definition of dangerous is also provided by reference to a companion statute.||Statute|
|James v. RSPCA||EWHC 1642||Defendant was charged with unnecessary suffering towards three horses found in terrible conditions. It was held that where a protected animal is found in distress, a veterinarian's certificate need not be in writing for a constable or inspector to exercise powers under Section 18 of the Animal Welfare Act 2006 (namely seizure and detention). Oral certification of suffering will suffice in certain circumstances, for example where the protected animal requires urgent treatment and there is not sufficient time to produce a written certificate.||Case|
|Pless v. State||648 S.E.2d 752 (Ga. App. 2007)||286 Ga.App. 235 (2007)||
In this Georgia case, the defendant was convicted by a jury in the trial court of two counts of failure to keep an animal under restraint and one count of allowing an animal to become a public nuisance. On appeal, the appellate court affirmed the defendant's conviction with the exception of that portion of his sentence requiring him to reimburse the county for his court-appointed attorney fees. The Supreme Court of Georgia, however, reversed the appellate court's holding and ruled that the trial court was authorized to impose the reimbursement of attorney fees as part of the sentence. On remand, the appellate court vacated that portion of its opinion that reversed the imposition of attorney fees and adopted the Supreme Court's opinion as its own; all other respects of the appellate decision, Pless v. State, 633 S.E.2d 340 (Ga. App., 2006), remain undisturbed.
|US - Critical Habitat Listing for the Arroyo Toad||CFR Part 17, RIN 1018-AT42||This rule designates 11,695 acres of critical habitat for the arroyo toad in Santa Barbara , Ventura , Los Angeles , San Bernardino and Riverside counties in California . FWS had to designate critical habitat for the arroyo toad as a result of a settlement agreement in Center for Biological Diversity v. United States Fish and Wildlife Service . The critical habitat was designated in accordance with the Endangered Species Act of 1973 and its amendments. This specific critical habitat is a revision of the final rule on arroyo toad critical habitat designation of 2/1/01 ( 69 FR 9414 ), which was deemed deficient and was overruled.||Administrative|
|Animal Law Volume 14 Part 2 Index||