Results
| Title | Citation | Alternate Citation | Agency Citation | Summary | Type |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| TN - Liens, Veterinary - § 63-12-134. Liens and incumbrances. | T. C. A. § 63-12-134 | TN ST § 63-12-134 | This statute specifically allow vets to hold an animal until a bill is paid for treatment, board or care of an animal. | Statute | |
| NH - Licenses - Chapter 466. Dogs and Cats. | N.H. Rev. Stat. § 466:29 | NH ST 466:29 | This New Hampshire statute provides that, in the case of a rabies epidemic, the mayor and aldermen of a city or the selectmen of a town may order that all dogs within the limits of the city or town shall be muzzled or restrained from running at large during the time prescribed by such order. Any offending dog may be impounded. | Statute | |
| Safari Club International v. Zinke | 878 F.3d 316 (D.C. Cir. 2017) | 2017 WL 6544114 | This case dealt with an action brought by an organization of safari hunters and firearm advocacy association under the Administrative Procedures Act (APA) and the Endangered Species Act (ESA) against the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Services (FWS), challenging the decision to suspend imports of sport-hunted African elephant trophies from Zimbabwe. The U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia entered summary judgment in FWS's favor, and the organization and association appealed. Under the ESA, sport-hunted African elephant trophies may only be imported into the United States if, among other things, the FWS makes “[a] determination ... that the killing of the trophy animal will enhance the survival of the species”. The Court of Appeals held that 1) FWS's interpretation of Special Rule forbidding import of sport-hunted elephant trophies was permissible; 2) FWS could base finding that killing of African elephants did not enhance species' survival on absence of evidence that sport hunting enhanced survival of species; 3) FWS's conclusion that it lacked evidence to make finding that killing African elephants in Zimbabwe would enhance survival of species rebutted any presumption that importation did not violate any provision of ESA or regulation issued pursuant to ESA; 4) removal of enhancement requirement from Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora did not require FWS to reconsider Special Rule; 5) finding constituted rule rather than adjudication; and 6) FWS's failure to engage in notice-and-comment prior to finding was not harmless error. Affirmed in part and reversed in part, and remanded so the FWS can initiate rule making to address enhancement findings for the time periods at issue in this case. | Case | |
| PA - Pittsburgh - CHAPTER 635: Other Animals And Fowl ( Article 3: Dogs, Cats, and Other Animals) | Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania Code of Ordinances, Article 3: Dogs, Cats, and Other Animals, Secs. 635.03 - 635.08 |
These Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania ordinances prohibit any person from riding or driving any animal-drawn conveyance on any street or sidewalk within the city except by permit or by authorization from the Director of the Department of Public Works. Whoever violates this provision will be fined $100 for the first offense and $300 for any subsequent offenses. Additionally, these ordinances provide provisions related to rodeos and whoever violates these provisions will be punished by a fine not to exceed $1,000, imprisonment of up to 30 days, or both. |
Local Ordinance | ||
| OR - Trusts - 130.185. Pet trust. | O. R. S. § 130.185 | OR ST § 130.185 | This statute comprises Oregon's Pet Trust law based on the Uniform Trust Code. Under the law, a trust may be created to provide for the care of one or more animals that are alive during the settlor's lifetime. The trust terminates upon the death of the animal or, if the trust was created to provide for the care of more than one animal, upon the death of the last surviving animal. | Statute | |
| MO - Impound - Chapter 273. Dogs--Cats. Local Option Dog Tax. | V. A. M. S. 273.100 | MO ST 273.100 | This Missouri statute provides that every city or town marshal of every incorporated city or town shall seize and impound all dogs found running at large without collars around their necks. These dogs will be kept for a period of one week after which they shall be put to death by humane methods. The statute further states that any marshal who shall fail or refuse to take up and impound any such dog shall be guilty of a misdemeanor and on conviction thereof fined not less than five dollars nor more than twenty-five dollars. | Statute | |
| US - Eagle - Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Reopening of Comment Period | 1995 WL 121178 (F.R.) |
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) is reopening the comment period on the bald eagle reclassification proposal for thirty days. On July 12, 1994, the Service proposed reclassifying the bald eagles of the lower 48 States as threatened, except those already listed as threatened and those of the Southwestern Recovery Region and Mexico. The bald eagles of the Southwestern Recovery Region were proposed to remain listed as endangered. The Service also proposed classifying bald eagles in Mexico as endangered; they are not currently listed as endangered or threatened. Specific public comment was solicited on the status of bald eagles in the Southwest and Mexico and the distinctness of those eagles as a separate population. New information indicates that the Southwestern and Mexican bald eagles may not warrant a classification as endangered. The Service is making available for public review and comment information recently received about bald eagles of the Southwestern Recovery Region. |
Administrative | ||
| AZ - Facility Dog - § 8-422. Use of a facility dog in court proceedings; definition | A. R. S. § 8-422 | AZ ST § 8-422 | This Arizona law states that a court shall allow a facility dog to accompany a victim who is under 18 while he or she is testifying in court. A party seeking the use of a facility dog must file a notice with the court that includes the certification of the facility dog, the name of the person or entity who certified the dog and evidence that the facility dog is insured. It is discretionary for the court to allow a facility dog for a victim over the age of 18. | Statute | |
| Commonwealth v. Creighton | 639 A.2d 1296 (Pa.Cmwlth.,1994) | 163 Pa.Cmwlth. 68 (1994) |
In this Pennsylvania case, a cat owner challenged a local ordinance that limited the number of cats she could own at her residence (she owned 25 cats that were rescued "mousers" from factories; the ordinance limited ownership to 5). The court noted that the preamble to the ordinance stated that pursuant to the Borough Code and "in the interest of preserving the public health, safety and general welfare of the residents ... [the Borough] desires to limit the number of dogs and cats kept by any one person and/or residence," but did not state what legitimate public health, safety and welfare goals the Borough sought to advance by enacting this ordinance. Thus, from the information before the court, it could not say whether the Borough ordinance here was a reasonable means to effectuate a legitimate governmental goal. |
Case | |
| NM - Assistance Animal - Assistance Animal/Guide Dog Laws | NMSA 1978, § 28-7-3 to 28-7-5; § 28-11-1 to 28-11-6; § 77-1-15.1; § 65-7-16 | NM ST §§ 28-7-3 to 28-7-5; § 28-11-1 to 28-11-6; § 77-1-15.1; § 65-7-16 | The following statutes comprise the state's relevant assistance animal and guide dog laws. | Statute |