Results
| Title | Citation | Alternate Citation | Summary | Type |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| AR - Companion animals - Decreto 1088/2011 | Decreto 1088/2011 | This law creates the "National Program for Responsible Ownership and Health of Dogs and Cats" in Argentina. | Statute | |
| TX - Restaurant - § 437.025. Requirements for Dogs in Outdoor Dining Areas; Municipal Preemption | V.T.C.A., Health & Safety Code § 437.025 | TX HEALTH & S § 437.025 | This Texas law from 2019 allows food establishments to permit customers to have dogs in outdoor dining areas under certain conditions. Among other things, the restaurant must post a conspicuous sign informing patrons that dogs are permitted, create access so dogs do not enter the interior of the restaurant, require customers to keep dogs on leashes and off tables and chairs, and make sure there is no food preparation in the dog-friendly dining area. A municipality may not adopt or enforce an ordinance, rule, or similar measure that imposes a requirement on a food service establishment for a dog in an outdoor dining area that is more stringent than the requirements listed in the statute. | Statute |
| AK - Initiatives - Ballot Measure 3 (bear baiting or feeding) | 2004 Ballot Measure 3 | This Alaska ballot measure was defeated in the November 2004 election. It would have made it illegal for a person to bait or intentionally feed a bear for purposes of hunting, viewing, or photographing the bear. A person who violated this proposed law would have been guilty of a Class A misdemeanor, punishable by up to one-year imprisonment and a fine of up to $10,000. It failed with only 43.3% of the vote. | Statute | |
| WI - Fur - 29.627. Domestic fur-bearing animal farms | W. S. A. 29.627 | WI ST 29.627 | This Wisconsin law states that fur farming constitutes an "agricultural pursuit." Any such animals raised in captivity are domestic animals for purposes of ownership, possession, and taxation. | Statute |
| UK - Riding - Riding Establishments Act 1970 | 1970 CHAPTER 32 |
An Act to confer further powers on local authorities with respect to the licensing of riding establishments and to amend the Riding Establishments Act 1964. |
Statute | |
| American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals et al v. Ringling Brothers, et al, |
This case involves the Ringling Brothers circus company’s mistreatment of elephants brought by the ASPCA. Plaintiffs alleged that the alleged routine beating, chaining, and other mistreatment amounted to an unlawful taking of an endangered species under the Endangered Species Act (ESA). Judge rejects defendants’ motion to dismiss and order the case to proceed. |
Pleading | ||
| Kaufman v. Langhofer | 222 P.3d 272 (Ariz.App. Div. 1, 2009) | 2009 WL 4980337 (Ariz.App. Div. 1), 223 Ariz. 249 (2009) |
This Arizona based appeal arises out of a veterinary malpractice action filed by plaintiff/appellant David Kaufman against defendants/appellees, William Langhofer, DVM, and Scottsdale Veterinary Clinic over the death of Salty, Kaufman's scarlet macaw. The main issue on appeal is whether a pet owner is entitled to recover emotional distress and loss of companionship damages over the death of his or her pet. Plaintiff argues that the court here should “expand” Arizona common law to allow a pet owner to recover emotional distress damages and damages for loss of companionship in a veterinarian malpractice action. While the court acknowledged the emotional distress Kaufman suffered over Salty's death, it noted that Dr. Langhofer's negligence did not directly harm Kaufman. Thus, the court felt that it would not be appropriate to expand Arizona common law to allow a pet owner to recover emotional distress or loss of companionship damages because that would offer broader compensation for the loss of a pet than for the loss of a human. |
Case |
| MD - Police animals - § 3-526. Funding for veterinary treatment for retired law enforcement dogs | MD Code, Public Safety, § 3-526 | This law enacted in 2021 provides that a State or local law enforcement agency that removes from duty a dog used in law enforcement work shall reimburse an individual who, under a written agreement with the law enforcement agency, takes possession of the dog on or after October 1, 2020, for reasonable and necessary veterinary treatment provided to the dog. Public donations may be accepted and distributed to the K-9 Compassionate Care Fund. Reimbursement may be only for usual and customary veterinary treatment that is not attributable to abuse or neglect of the dog. Costs may not exceed $2,500 during a calendar year and $10,000 over the life of the dog. | Statute | |
| UT - Dog Bite - Title 18. Dogs. Chapter 1. Injuries by Dogs. | U.C.A. 1953 § 18-1-1 to 4 | UT ST § 18-1-1 to 4 | This Utah statute provides that every person owning or keeping a dog shall be liable in damages for injury committed by such dog, and it shall not be necessary in any action brought therefor to allege or prove that such dog was of a vicious or mischievous disposition or that the owner or keeper thereof knew that it was vicious or mischievous. This does not apply to dogs used by law enforcement officials. In 2014, a provision for the use of arbitration in personal injury from dog bite cases was added. | Statute |
| AU - Exhibited Animals Protection Act 1986 (NSW) | Exhibited Animals Protection Act 1986 |
This Act deals with the exhibition of animals at marine or zoological parks, circuses and other places. It regulates the exhibition of all vertebrate animals in zoos, circuses or mobile displays regardless of whether they are native, exotic or domestic.
A person must have an approval to keep and exhibit an animal, and this is subject to qualifications, experience or any other term or condition that may be considered necessary |
Statute |