Results
| Title | Citation | Alternate Citation | Summary | Type |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| OH - Restaurant - 3717.14 Dogs in outdoor dining area of retail food establishment or food service operation | R.C. § 3717.14 | OH ST § 3717.14 | This Ohio law, enacted in 2018, allows a retail food establishment or food service operation to allow patrons to bring dogs to outdoor dining area of the establishment or operation in accordance with this section. The establishment who allows dogs must do the following: (1) adopt a policy that requires patrons to control their dog, whether with a leash or otherwise, while the dog is in the outdoor dining area; (2) not allow the person to take the dog into the outdoor dining area through any of the establishment's or operation's indoor areas; and (3) comply with sanitation and other standards of Ohio codes. Dogs brought to outdoor dining areas must be properly vaccinated in accordance with state and local laws. | Statute |
| WA - Domestic Violence - 26.50.060. Relief--Duration--Realignment of designation of parties--Award of costs, service fees, and a | West's RCWA 26.50.060 | WA ST 26.50.060 | This Washington law reflects the state's provision for protective orders in cases of domestic abuse. In addition to other forms of relief, a court may also order possession and use of essential personal effects. Per subsection (l), personal effects may include pets. The court may order that a petitioner be granted the exclusive custody or control of any pet owned, possessed, leased, kept, or held by the petitioner, respondent, or minor child residing with either the petitioner or respondent and may prohibit the respondent from interfering with the petitioner's efforts to remove the pet (see (1)(l)).. The court may also prohibit the respondent from knowingly coming within, or knowingly remaining within, a specified distance of specified locations where the pet is regularly found. | Statute |
| WI - St. Francis - Breed - § 180-5 Dangerous and Vicious Dogs | ST. FRANCIS, WI., MUNICIPAL CODE § 180-5 (2008) |
In St. Francis, Wisconsin, no person may harbor, keep or maintain any pit bull that was not registered and licensed by October 1, 2001. Any person having knowledge that another has an unregistered pit bull must file a sworn affidavit with the Municipal Court Clerk. Owners of pit bulls that are allowed must comply with all provisions applicable to dangerous dogs, such as securely confining the dog, displaying a dangerous dog sign, and if off of the premises, keep the dog muzzled and on a leash. A violation may result in impoundment of the dog, as well as a forfeiture of up to $1,000. |
Local Ordinance | |
| Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Western Australia Inc v Hammarquist | (2003) 138 A Crim R 329 | [2003] WASCA 35 |
The respondents were charged with nine counts of inflicting unnecessary suffering on an animal, a cow, and one count of of subjecting 50 cows to unnecessary suffering. The trial judge found the respondents wrongly charged and dismissed the charges without the prosecution clearly articulating its case. The trial judge was incorrect to dismiss the charges for want of particulars. The trial magistrate was also incorrect to dismiss the tenth charge for duplicity. In some circumstances it is possible to include multiple offences in the same charge where the matters of complaint are substantially the same. |
Case |
| Bolivia - Rights of nature - LEY 71, 2010 | Ley 71 is “the law for the rights of mother earth." This law recognizes the rights of Mother Earth, as well as the obligations and duties of the government and society to guarantee respect for these rights. This law gives the environment, or "mother earth," and all its components, the status of collective subject of public interest for the purpose of guaranteeing the protection of its rights. | Statute | ||
| TX - Rabies - § 826.045. Area Rabies Quarantine. | V. T. C. A., Health & Safety Code § 826.045 | TX HEALTH & S § 826.045 | This Texas statute outlines the parameters under which a rabies quarantine area may be adopted. If this occurs, it may call for the restraint of carnivorous animals and the transportation of carnivorous animals into and out of the quarantine area. While the quarantine is in effect, the rules adopted by the board supersede all other applicable ordinances or rules applying to the quarantine area. | Statute |
| AR - Maumelle - Breed - Pit Bull Ordinance § 10-133 | MAUMELLE, AR., CITY CODE §§ 10-133 - 10-134 |
In Maumelle, Arkansas, it is unlawful to own or keep a pit bull dog or an American Bulldog, with exceptions. For example, a banned breed may be brought into the city for the purpose of veterinary care, as long as the dog is secured and muzzled.
|
Local Ordinance | |
| Waters v. Powell | 232 P.3d 1086 (Utah Ct. App., 2010) | 655 Utah Adv. Rep. 24, 2010 UT App 105, 2010 WL 1710797 (Utah Ct. App.) |
In this Utah case, defendant Powell took his dog to a kennel managed by plaintiff Waters to be boarded for a few days. Waters took the dog to a play area to be introduced to the other dogs where the dog bit Waters. Waters filed a complaint against Powell alleging that he was strictly liable for the injury the dog inflicted. On interlocutory appeal, the Court of Appeals held that Waters was a "keeper" of the dog for purposes of the state's dog bite statute (sec. 18-1-1). Waters essentially conceded on appeal that if she is a keeper then she is precluded from asserting a strict liability claim against Powell. Thus, the district court's denial of summary judgment was reversed and the case remanded with instructions that Powell's summary judgment motion be granted. |
Case |