Results
| Title | Citation | Alternate Citation | Agency Citation | Summary | Type |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| NM - Exotic Pets - 19.35.7. Importation of Live Nondomestic Animals Birds and Fish | N.M. Admin. Code 19.35.7.1 - 23 | NM ADC 19.35.7.1 - 23 | This regulation covers persons who desire to bring wildlife species into the state of New Mexico. It may include the general public, pet importers, holders of Class A park licenses, department permitees and others. The stated objective is, "[t]o provide consistent criteria for the importation of live non-domesticated animals into New Mexico and to protect native wildlife against the introduction of contagious or infectious diseases, undesirable species and address human health and safety issues." | Administrative | |
| KS - Rabies - 9-18-5 Importing dogs and cats. | K.A.R. 9-18-5 | KS ADC 9-18-5 | This Kansas regulation states that dogs and cats shall not be imported into Kansas unless accompanied by a certificate of veterinary inspection issued by a licensed veterinarian and vaccinated against rabies with a product licensed by the U.S.D.A., with the duration of immunity and method of administration in accordance with the manufacturer's guidelines. Dogs and cats under three months of age shall not be required to be vaccinated against rabies. | Administrative | |
| Warren v. Commonwealth | 822 S.E.2d 395 (Va. Ct. App., 2019) | 69 Va. App. 659, 2019 WL 189386 (Va. Ct. App., 2019) | Warren, the defendant in this case, videotaped on his cell phone sexual encounters he had with K.H. and her dog. The videos showed the dog's tongue penetrating K.H.'s vagina while K.H. performed oral sex on Warren. In March of 2017, Deputy Sheriff Adam Reynolds spoke to Warren about an unrelated matter. Warren asked if "bestiality type stuff" was "legal or illegal," described the cellphone videos, and offered to show them to Reynolds. Reynolds contacted Investigator Janet Sergeant and they obtained a search warrant and removed the videos from Warren's cellphone. Warren was indicted and moved to dismiss the indictment arguing that Code § 18.2-361(A), which criminalizes soliciting another person to "carnally know a brute animal or to submit to carnal knowledge with a brute animal," is facially unconstitutional and unconstitutional as applied to him. "He argued that the conduct depicted in the videos could not be subject to criminal sanction because it amounted to nothing more than consensual conduct involving adults." The trial court denied Warren's motion to dismiss. The trial court convicted Warren of the charged offense. Warren appealed again challenging the constitutionality of the offense and that it violated his due process rights. Warren relied on a Supreme Court case, Lawrence v. Texas, which held that two adults engaging in consensual homosexual sexual practices was protected by the due process clause. He argued that the reasoning of Lawrence applies with equal force to his case. The Court of Appeals reasoned that although Code § 18.2-361(A) cannot criminalize sodomy between consenting adults, it can continue to regulate other forms of sodomy, like bestiality. "If Lawrence, which involved a prohibition on same-sex sodomy, did not facially invalidate the anti-sodomy provision of then Code § 18.2-361(A), it defies logic that it facially invalidates the bestiality portion of the statute that existed before the 2014 amendment and is all that remains after that amendment." Even though Warren claims his right as "the right of adults to engage in consensual private conduct without intervention of the government," the court concluded that the right he is actually asserting is the right to engage in bestiality. Code § 18.2-361(A) "does not place any limitation on the rights of consenting adults to engage in private, consensual, noncommercial, sexual acts with each other." The only act it prohibits is sexual conduct with a brute animal. Therefore, the only right the statute could possibly infringe on wold be the right to engage in bestiality. The Commonwealth has a legitimate interest in banning sex with animals. The Court of Appeals held that the General Assembly's prohibition of bestiality does not violate the Due Process Clause of the Constitution. The Court rejected Warren's challenge to the constitutionality of the statute and affirmed the judgment of the trial court. | Case | |
| WA - Ordinances - 16.10.040. Dog control zones--Regulations--License fees, collection, disposition | West's RCWA 16.10.040 | WA ST 16.10.040 | This Washington statute provides that the county commissioners shall by ordinance promulgate the regulations to be enforced within a dog control zone. These shall include provisions for the control of unlicensed dogs and the establishment of license fees. | Statute | |
| Tilson v. Russo | 30 A.D.3d 856 (N.Y.A.D. 3 Dept., 2006), | 2006 WL 1703632 (N.Y.A.D. 3 Dept.), 818 N.Y.S.2d 311 |
In this New York case, plaintiff, an experienced recreational horse rider, was bitten by a horse she intended to use to practice her techniques at defendant's stable. The rider then brought a negligence action against owners of horse that bit her on the shoulder. In affirming the lower court's granting of summary judgment, the appellate court found that rider's injury occurred in the context of her participation in the recreational sporting activity of horseback riding, for purposes of primary assumption of the risk principles. She was aware of the inherent risks in sporting events involving horses, had an appreciation of the nature of the risks, and voluntarily assumed those risks. |
Case | |
| Nichols v. Sukaro Kennels | 555 N.W.2d 689 (Iowa, 1996) | 61 A.L.R.5th 883 (1996) |
During a stay at defendant kennel, the kennel owner's dog tore off plaintiff's dog's left front leg and shoulder blade. Plaintiff's petition sought damages to compensate for the injuries and suffering the dog incurred and the loss of aesthetic intrinsic value of the dog. In upholding the district court's denial of damages for emotional injury and mental suffering, the Court of Appeals rejected plaintiff's argument for damages based on the intrinsic value of a pet for the negligent injury to the dog. |
Case | |
| WA - Selah - Breed - 5.07.080 Pit bull dogs prohibited. | SELAH, WA., MUNICIPAL CODE § 5.01.125, 5.01.127, 5.01.40, 5.01.50, 5.07.080 - 5.07.127 (2004) |
In Selah, Washington, it is unlawful to keep, harbor, own, or possess a pit bull dog, with an exception for pit bulls licensed prior to the ordinance. Such dogs are subject to certain requirements regarding confinement, use of an orange collar, leash and muzzle, the posting of"Beware of Dog" signs, and the maintenance of liability insurance. Such dogs must be vaccinated against rabies and be photographed and micro-chipped for identification purposes. An owner who fails to comply may have his pit bull dog confiscated and impounded. Violations of r constitute a gross misdemeanor, punishable by a fine of up to $5,000 and/or imprisonment of up to one year. |
Local Ordinance | ||
| Veterinary Surgeons Investigating Committee v. Lloyd | 2002 WL 31928523, 134 A Crim R 441 | 2002 NSWADT 284 |
Appeal of agency determination of veterinarian malpractice for failure to detect ring worms in a cat. Long case with full discussion of process of administrative hearing and the standards by which to decide if an action is malpractice. |
Case | |
| “ASOCIACIÓN DE FUNCIONARIOS Y ABOGADOS POR LOS DERECHOS DE LOS ANIMALES Y OTROS C/ GCBA S/ AMPARO” | Orangutana Sandra-Sentencia de Cámara- Sala I del Fuero Contencioso Administrativo y Tributario CABA | Courtroom I of the Chamber of Appeals in Contentious Administrative and Tax Matters of the City of Buenos Aires ruled that the technical reports presented by the experts for the improvement of the orangutan Sandra’s living conditions showed enough evidence to conclude that it was not in the best interest of the orangutan to transfer her to a sanctuary or to transfer her to her natural habitat. Thus, the court accepted and ordered a series of measures in order to guarantee her welfare conditions. | Case | ||
| US - Pets and Housing - Subpart C. Pet Ownership for the Elderly or Persons with Disabilities | 24 C.F.R. § 5.300 to .327 |
This subpart implements section 227 of the Housing and Urban Rural Recovery Act of 1983 (12 U.S.C. 1701r-1) as it pertains to projects for the elderly or persons with disabilities under: (1) the housing programs administered by the Assistant Secretary for Housing - Federal Housing Commissioner; (2) projects assisted under the programs contained in chapter VIII of this title 24; and (3) the public housing program. The rule specifically states that it does not apply to assistance or service animals. The rule states that, except as otherwise provided, no project owner that manages a project for the elderly or disabled may restrict or discriminate against any person by reason of the person's ownership or presence of a common household pet in the person's dwelling unit. A "common household pet," is defined as "[a] domesticated animal, such as a dog, cat, bird, rodent (including a rabbit), fish, or turtle, that is traditionally kept in the home for pleasure rather than for commercial purposes" (excluding reptiles with exception of turtles). Notice of the allowance must be provided to tenants and tenants must be given the ability to access to pet rules. The project owner must establish reasonable rules to govern the keeping of pets.
|
Administrative |