Results
Displaying 121 - 130 of 6638
| Title | Citation | Alternate Citation | Agency Citation | Summary | Type |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Causa Rol C-1533-2021-Chile- Do not publish | Causa Rol 1533-2021 |
Pet shared custody Igor and Bambu |
Case | ||
| CT - Exotic - Sec. 26-55-6. Importation, possession or liberation of wild birds, mammals, reptiles, amphibians and invertebrates | CT ADC § 26-55-6 | Regs. Conn. State Agencies § 26-55-6 | This Connecticut regulation (effective March 1, 2012) places restrictions on who may import or possess certain categories of wild animals in the state. The regulation puts wild animals into one of four categories: Category One, Two, Three, or Four Wild Animals. With regard to Great Apes, a member within the family Hominidae (including, but not limited to, gorilla, chimpanzee and orangutan) is a Category One Animal. No person, except a municipal park, zoo, public nonprofit aquarium, nature center,museum, exhibitor licensed or registered with the United States Department of Agriculture, laboratory registered with the United States Department of Agriculture, or research facility registered with the United States Department of Agriculture, shall import or possess any Category One Wild Animal. | Administrative | |
| Chile - Farm animals - Decreto 29 | Decreto 29 | This "Decreto" or executive order contains the welfare standards in industrial livestock production and commercialization. It is an indirect result of the agreement DS N° 28/2003 between Chile and the European Union together with decretos 28, and 30, 2013. It defines industrial production and confinement. Other important aspects include the prohibition of improperly managing animals, and the requirement to minimize pain and suffering during surgical husbandry procedures such as castration, dehorning/disbudding, tail cropping, beak trimming, etc. | Statute | ||
| CT - Equine Activity Liability Statute - Chapter 925. Statutory Rights of Action and Defenses | C. G. S. A. § 52-557p | CT ST § 52-557p | This short Connecticut statute limits the liability of equine sponsors by providing that each person engaged in recreational equestrian activities assumes the risk for any injury arising out of the hazards inherent in equestrian sports. However, if the injury was proximately caused by the negligence of the person providing the horse or by the failure to guard or warn against a dangerous condition, use, structure or activity, liability if not limited by law. Another section (557s), enacted in 2014, states that, in any civil action brought against the owner or keeper of any horse, pony, donkey or mule to recover damages for any personal injury allegedly caused by such horse, pony, donkey or mule, such horse, pony, donkey or mule shall not be found to belong to a species that possesses a naturally mischievous or vicious propensity. As such, there is no cause of action for strict liability brought against the owner of any horse, pony, donkey or mule to recover damages for any personal injury alleged to be caused by the animal. | Statute | |
| AK - Conversation - Chapter 05. Powers and Duties of Commissioners of Natural Resources and Environmental Conservation. | AS § 03.05.011, § 03.05.013, § 03.05.050, § 03.05.090, § 03.05.100 | AK ST § 03.05.011, § 03.05.013, § 03.05.050, § 03.05.090, § 03.05.100 | This set of Alaska laws sets forth the powers of the commissioner of environmental conservation. Additionally, the commissioner of environmental conservation may employ or appoint a person to act as the state veterinarian to carry out and enforce the requirements of this title. The penalties for violation of provisions under this chapter are also described. | Statute | |
| Jackson v. Mateus | 70 P.3d 78 (Utah 2003) | Plaintiff filed suit against the defendant after she was bitten by the defendant’s cat and required medical attention as a result of the bite. Plaintiff found the defendant’s cat on her property and mistakenly started petting the cat, thinking that it was one of her own cats. As plaintiff was petting the cat, it bit her causing her injury. Plaintiff filed a negligence claim against defendant for not restraining the cat. The court held in favor of the defendant because the court found that this incident was not foreseeable and because it was not foreseeable, the defendant did not owe a duty to restrain the animal under the common law, municipal law, or state law. | Case | ||
| Animals and the Law |
|
Policy | |||
| LA - Cruelty - § 89. Crime against nature | LSA-R.S. 14:89 | This Louisiana law makes it a crime against nature to engage in "unnatural carnal copulation by a human being with another of the same sex or opposite sex or with an animal." This results in a penalty of a fine of not more than two thousand dollars, and imprisonment, with or without hard labor, for not more than five years, or both. In 2018, the legislature added a new section dedicated to sexual abuse of animals. | Statute | ||
| Cramer v. Harris | 591 F. App'x 634 (9th Cir. 2015) | Plaintiff William Cramer filed this lawsuit in federal district court to challenge the constitutionality of California’s Proposition 2, which requires California egg farmers to house egg laying hens in less restrictive enclosures. Plaintiff argued that, because Proposition 2 did not specify a minimum cage size for egg laying hens, a reasonable person could not discern whether the enclosures being used were compliant with Proposition 2 and that the law is void for vagueness as a result. The district court dismissed the lawsuit. On appeal, the court reasoned that Proposition 2 did not need to specify a minimum amount of space per bird, and that the space requirements mandating that each hen be able to extend its limbs fully and turn around freely can be discerned using objective criteria. Accordingly, the court of appeals affirmed the judgment of the lower court and dismissed the lawsuit. | Case | ||
| MO - Domestic violence - 455.045. Temporary relief available--ex parte orders | V. A. M. S. 455.010, 455.045 | MO ST 455.010, 455.045 | Missouri amended its laws on domestic violence protection orders in 2021 to include the protection of pets. Any ex parte order of protection shall be to protect the petitioner from domestic violence, stalking, or sexual assault and may include "[a] temporary order of possession of pets where appropriate." “Pet” is defined as a living creature maintained by a household member for companionship and not for commercial purposes. | Statute |
