Results
| Title | Citation | Alternate Citation | Summary | Type |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| NJ - Assistance Animals - Assistance Animal/Guide Dog Laws | N.J.S.A. 2A:42-109; 10:5-5; 10:5-29.1 - 11; 39:4-37.1; 27:25-5b; 48:3-33; App. A:9-43.2; 2C:29-3.1, 3.2; 48:3-33; 18A:46-13.3; 36:2-213 | NJ ST 2A:42-109; 10:5-5; 10:5-29.1 - 11; 39:4-37.1; 27:25-5b; 48:3-33; App. A:9-43.2; 2C:29-3.1, 3.2; 18A:46-13.3; 36:2-213 | The following statutes comprise the state's relevant assistance animal and guide dog laws. | Statute |
| Young's Bus Lines v. Redmon | 43 S.W.2d 266 (Tex. 1931) |
Appellee blind newspaper vendor had a trained seeing eye dog that was run over and killed by a public bus, driven by appellant. The court held that the measure of damages was the market value of the dog at the time and place where it was killed. If the dog had no market value, then the intrinsic or actual value to appellee was the measure of damages. |
Case | |
| Center for Biological Diversity v. California Fish & Game Com'n | 2008 WL 4055216 (Cal. App. 3 Dist.) | 166 Cal.App.4th 597, 82 Cal.Rptr.3d 855 (Cal.App. 3 Dist.), 08 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 11,650 |
The California Fish & Game Commission (Commission) rejected a petition by the Center for Biological Diversity (Center) to add the California tiger salamander to the Commission’s list of endangered species under the California Endangered Species Act (CESA), on grounds that the petition lacked sufficient information to indicate that the listing may be warranted. The Court of Appeal, Third District, California, held that the Trial Court did not err in directing the Commission to enter a decision accepting the Center’s petition, as inferences drawn from evidence offered in support of the petition clearly afforded sufficient information to indicate that listing action may be warranted. The Court found that information in the administrative record indicating that the salamander species “does not breed prolifically, is vulnerable to several significant threats, has lost most of its original habitat, and has been displaced by a hybrid from a significant portion of its range” was not outweighed by the Commission’s evidence and arguments regarding the introduction of artificial ponds which could provide increased breeding habitat, and the listing of the species under the Federal Endangered Species Act. |
Case |
| Ramirez v. M.L. Management Co., Inc. | 920 So.2d 36 (D. Fla. 2004) | 2005 WL 3180013 (D. Fla.) |
In this Florida dog bite case, the appellant asked the court to limit the application of a case that held that a landlord has no duty to third parties for injuries caused by a tenant's dog where those injuries occur off the leased premises. The child-tenant injured in this case was bitten by the dog of another tenant in a park adjacent to the apartment complex where she lived. The appellate court reversed the grant of summary judgment for the landlord because the boundary of the premises is not dispositive of the landlord's liability. |
Case |
| Colombia - Bullfighting - LEY 916, 2004, National bullfighting Statute | LEY 916, 2004 | Ley 916, or National Bullfighting Statute, declares bullfighting as “a form of artistic expression”. This statute has national scope, and regulates everything concerning the preparation, organization and development of bullfighting, giving a status of legality in the legal system. The Taurine Statute discusses topics such as the characteristics of the bullring, the name of different areas in the ring, and their purpose. It has an extensive glossary explaining the different methods utilized during the different phases of the bullfight, procedures to weaken and kill the bull, the moves of the animal and the bullfighters. This statute defines the name of the weapons and how and when to use them. It notes requirements such as that every bullring stadium must provide medical assistance for the participants, with all least four specialized doctors in every bullfight. While on-site medical care is outlined for the human participants, no veterinarian is required to be present during the execution of the bullfight. | Statute | |
| MO - Ordinances - Chapter 79. Fourth Class Cities. Police and Health Regulations | V. A. M. S. 79.400 | MO ST 79.400 | This Missouri statute provides that a local board of aldermen may tax, regulate and restrain and prohibit the running at large of dogs, and provide for their destruction when at large contrary to ordinance, and impose penalties on the owners or keepers thereof. | Statute |
| Balch v. Newberry | 208 Okla. 46, 253 P.2d 153, 35 A.L.R.2d 1267, 1953 OK 23 | 208 Okla. 46, 253 P.2d 153, 35 A.L.R.2d 1267, 1953 OK 23 |
In this Oklahoma case, plaintiff purchased a pointer dog for a payment of $800 cash, whom he purchased for breeding purposes. Plaintiff alleged, that for several years prior to March 24, 1947, defendant was engaged in the business of breeding and selling thoroughbred pointer bird dogs at Tulsa, Oklahoma, and that plaintiff had for many years been engaged in the business of operating kennels. In affirming the judgment for plaintiff, the court held that the purchase of a dog with the knowledge of the seller that it is bought exclusively for breeding purposes gives rise to a warranty of fitness for such purpose where the buyer relies upon the seller's skill and judgment that the dog is fit for such purpose. Where a sale of highly bred stud dog for breeding purposes is rescinded for breach of an implied warranty, because of sterility, the purchaser can recover what he paid under the contract and expenses necessarily incident to caring for the dog but he cannot, in addition, recover damages for the breach of the implied warranty of the dog's usefulness for breeding purposes. |
Case |
| Humane Soc. of U.S. v. Kempthorne | 579 F.Supp.2d 7 (D.D.C., 2008) | 2008 WL 4378080 (D.D.C.) | Environmental groups brought challenge under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) against a Rule promulgated by the Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) designating a particular geographic group of gray wolves as a “distinct population segment” (DPS) and removing the particular group from the endangered species list. The United States District Court, District of Columbia, held that the ESA is ambiguous with respect to whether the ESA permits FWS to use the DPS tool to remove ESA protections from a healthy sub-population of a listed species, and that the FWS rule was not entitled to Chevron deference, because the plain meaning of the statute is silent and/or ambiguous as to the particular issue at hand and there is no permissible agency construction to which the Court could defer. Lastly, the Court found that vacatur of the FWS Rule prior to remand was appropriate, because of the FWS’ failure to explain how its interpretation of the ESA comported with the policy objectives of the ESA, and because vacatur would result in very little to no confusion or inefficiency. | Case |
| ND - Hunting - NDCC, 20.1-01-11 Hunting and harassing game from aircraft, motor vehicle, or snowmobile prohibited | NDCC 20.1-01-11 | ND ST 20.1-01-11 | This North Dakota statute states that no person operating or controlling the operation of any aircraft or motor vehicle in the state may intentionally kill, chase, or harass any wild animal or wild bird, protected or unprotected, unless exceptions under the statute apply. Also no person, while operating a snowmobile in the state, may intentionally kill, chase, flush, or harass any wild animal or wild bird, protected or unprotected. | Statute |
| FL - Facility dog - § 92.55. Judicial or other proceedings involving victim or witness under the age of 18 | West's F.S.A. § 92.55 | Fla. Stat. Ann. § 92.55 | This statute allows any party at a judicial proceeding to protect a victim or witness under the age of 18 from severe emotional or mental harm due to the presence of the defendant. With respect to facility dogs, the law states that the court may set any other conditions it finds just and appropriate, including the use of a service or therapy animal that has been evaluated and registered according to national standards, in any proceeding involving a sexual offense. When deciding whether to permit a child victim or witness or sexual offense victim or witness to testify with the assistance of a registered service or therapy animal, the court must consider the following factors: (1) the age of the child victim or witness; (2) the age of the sexual offense victim or witness at the time the sexual offense occurred; (3) the interests of the child victim or witness or sexual offense victim or witness; (4) the rights of the parties to the litigation; and (5) any other relevant factor that would facilitate the testimony by the child victim or witness or sexual offense victim or witness. | Statute |