Results
| Title | Citation | Alternate Citation | Summary | Type |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| AZ - Ordinances - Article 2. Board of Trustees Government After Disincorporation. | A. R. S. § 9-219 (repealed 2017) | AZ ST § 9-219 | §§ 9-211 to 9-226. Repealed by Laws 2016, Ch. 62, § 9, eff. Jan. 1, 2017 (related to powers of the board of trustees) | Statute |
| New Jersey Revision of Statutes 1709-1877: Chapter XII Supplement: An act for the prevention of cruelty to animals. | N.J. Rev. Stat. 64-82 (1873) | A supplement to the New Jersey Revision of Statutes for 1877. The supplement covered standing for officer's of New Jersey Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals. In addition, the supplement addresses the question of jurisdiction for the enforcement the anti-cruelty laws. | Statute | |
| Moore v. Garner | 2005 WL 1022088 (E.D.Tex.) |
Complaints were made against a plaintiff-couple about the poor conditions for over 100 dogs and other animals that were living in on the couple’s farm. The couple who owned the farm failed to do anything about it and the animals were seized. Plaintiffs brought claims against sixty defendants (mainly Van Zandt County, Texas officials) for conspiracy and violations of the Hobbs Act, Animal Welfare Act, Animal Enterprise Protection Act, RICO, the Texas Constitution and other federal statutes. The trial court granted defendants' motion to dismiss and the District Court affirmed. |
Case | |
| AR - Racing - Ley 27330, Dog Racing law | Ley 27330 | This law prohibits dog racing of any breed in the entire territory. Organization, promotion, and facilitation of a dog race are punishable by imprisonment of not less than 3 months and not more than 4 years. Together with fines that can go from 4,000 Argentinian pesos to $80,000. | Statute | |
| Douglas Furbee, et al. v. Gregory L. Wilson, et. al. | 144 N.E.3d 801 (Ind. Ct. App. 2020) | Shelly Linder lived in an apartment complex with a no-pet policy. Linder asked if she could have an emotional-support animal and provided a letter from a licensed family and marriage therapist, which stated that Linder had a disability and required an emotional-support animal to help alleviate her symptoms. The letter did not identify a specific disability and the landlord subsequently requested more information from Linder. Linder did not provide any additional information and instead brought her cat into her apartment as her emotional-support animal. The landlord charged Linder a fine after discovering the cat on the premises and gave her seven days in which to remove the cat. Linder failed to comply which led to Linder’s eviction. The Indiana Civil Rights Commission filed a complaint against the landlord on behalf of Linder in Delaware Circuit Court alleging that the landlord failed to accommodate her request for an emotional-support animal in turn violating the Indiana Fair Housing Act. The trial court denied summary judgment for the landlord and this appeal followed. The landlord conceded that Linder was disabled and requested a reasonable accommodation, however, the landlord argued that it was not given enough information from which to “meaningfully” review Linder’s request. The Delaware Court of Appeals agreed that the Landlord did not have sufficient information to meaningfully review Linder’s request and because Linder did not inform the Landlord about her disability and her need for the cat, she was acting in bad faith. The Court ultimately reversed and remanded the case to the trial court. | Case | |
| AK - Initiatives - Ballot Measure 1 (voter wildlife initatives) | Ballot Measure 1 (2000) | This Alaska ballot measure would change the Alaska Constitution so that voters could not use the initiative process to make laws that permit, regulate, or prohibit taking or transporting wildlife, or prescribe seasons or methods for taking wildlife. The measure failed with 36% of the vote. | Statute | |
| WI - Veterinary - Chapter 89. Veterinary Examining Board | W.S.A. 89.02 - .08 | WI ST 89.02 - .08 | 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 |
| UK - Zoos - Zoo Licensing Act 1981 | 1981 c. 37 |
The Zoo Licensing Act 1981 is an Act to regulate by licence the conduct of zoos. The Act defines a zoo "[as] an establishment where wild animals are kept for exhibition to the public otherwise than for the purposes of a circus and otherwise than as a pet shop; and this Act applies to any zoo to which members of the public have access, with or without charge for admission, on more than seven days in any period of 12 consecutive months". |
Statute | |
| THE FUND FOR ANIMALS, INC., ET AL., appellants v. U.S. BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT, ET AL., appellees |
The Fund for Animals and individuals dedicated to protecting animals brought an action against Bureau of Land Management (BLM) challenging its implementation of its restoration strategy for wild horses and burros on public lands. The approved budget request made by the BLM, which contained outlines of the reinvigorated wild horses and burros program and set broad goals and strategies, was not an “agency action” subject to review. Finally, plaintiffs request for a permanent injunction, to prevent BLM from carrying out specified removal actions, was moot because the “gathers” have already occurred and what happens in the future is based on unknown variables. |
Pleading | ||
| Roman v. Carroll | 621 P.2d 307 (Ariz.App., 1980) |
The question on this appeal is whether a plaintiff can recover damages for emotional distress she suffered from watching defendants' St. Bernard dismember plaintiff's poodle while she was walking the dog near her home. Relying on a case that allowed damages for emotional distress suffered from witnessing injury to a third person, plaintiff contended that her relationship with her poodle was a close one within the confines of that case. However, the court summarily denied her claim, holding that a dog is personal property and damages are not recoverable for negligent infliction of emotional distress from witnessing injury to property. |
Case |