Results
| Title | Citation | Alternate Citation | Agency Citation | Summary | Type |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| NV - Rabies - Chapter 441A. Infectious Diseases; Toxic Agents | NV ADC 441A.410 to 445 | NAC 441A.410 to 445 |
NAC 441A.410 Appointment of rabies control authority; ordinance providing for rabies control program; authority of county, city or town to require licenses for dogs, cats and ferrets; duty of county, city or town to provide certain information to State Health Officer or repres |
Administrative | |
| French and Spanish Animal Laws |
French and Spanish Animal LawsFrance:1. Law of July 2,1850 relating to maltreatments on domestic animals Loi du 2 juillet 1850 relative aux mauvais traitements exercés envers les animaux domestiques . |
Policy | |||
| Branks v. Kern | 348 S.E.2d 815 (N.C.App.,1986) | 348 S.E.2d 815 (1986) |
In this negligence action, a cat owner brought suit against veterinarian and veterinary clinic after she was bitten by her own cat while the cat was receiving treatment by the veterinarian. At issue, is whether the veterinarian owed a duty to the cat owner to exercise reasonable care in preventing the cat from harming the owner while the cat was being treated. In review of the lower court’s grant of motion for summary judgment, the Court of Appeals held that substantial issues of material fact existed to preclude the grant of summary judgment. However, this was overturned on appeal at the Supreme Court. ( See , Branks v. Kern (On Appeal) 359 S.E.2d 780 (N.C.,1987)). |
Case | |
| Liotta v. Segur | Not Reported in A.2d, 2004 WL 728829 (Conn.Super.), 36 Conn. L. Rptr. 621 (Conn.Super.,2004) |
In this unreported Connecticut case, a dog owner sued a groomer for negligent infliction of emotional distress, alleging that the groomer negligently handled her very large dog when he removed it from her vehicle with “excessive force.” This resulted in a leg fracture, that, after lengthy and expensive care, ultimately resulted in the dog's euthanization. The court held that plaintiff failed to adequately plead a case for negligent infliction of emotional distress, but said in dicta that the results might be different for a pet owner who proves intentional infliction of emotional distress. Motion for summary judgment as against plaintiff's count two is granted. |
Case | ||
| VA - Research - Chapter 52. Humane Cosmetics Act | VA Code Ann. § 59.1-571 - 574 | VA ST § 59.1-571 - 574 | This Virginia law states that, beginning July 1, 2022, no manufacturer shall sell or offer for sale within the Commonwealth any cosmetic, if the cosmetics manufacturer knows or reasonably should know that the cosmetic or any component thereof was developed or manufactured using cosmetic animal testing that was conducted on or after January 1, 2022. Limited exceptions exist. Any person who violates any provision of this chapter is subject to a civil penalty of $5,000 and an additional $1,000 for each day the violation continues. Such penalty shall be collected by the Attorney General and the proceeds shall be deposited into the Literary Fund. | Statute | |
| People v. Zamora | 175 N.E.3d 700 (Ill.App. 1 Dist., 2020) | 2020 IL App (1st) 172011 (Ill.App. 1 Dist., 2020) | Defendant Juan Zamora was found guilty of failing to provide humane care and treatment for, and abusing, his 10 dogs in violation of the Humane Care for Animals Act. On appeal, defendant argues the evidence was insufficient to sustain his convictions because the it generally showed that he treated his dogs well and they had not sustained physical or psychological injuries. Additionally, he argues that section 3(a)(4) of the act, which criminalizes the failure to provide “humane care and treatment,” is unconstitutionally vague. The conviction stems from defendant's conduct with his 10 pit bull type dogs. When the investigating officer executed a search warrant on defendant's residence, they found the ten dogs heavily chained in the basement standing on newspaper completely saturated with feces and urine, along with breeding harnesses and training treadmills indicative of dog fighting. In challenging the sufficiency of the evidence, defendant suggests the evidence showed he was a "considerate dog owner with healthy dogs." However, the court was unconvinced, finding the slates of the metal and wooden makeshift cages were not appropriate for indoor or outdoor housing. Further, the accumulation of dog waste also supported the officer's testimony and the presence of dog fighting supplies supported a conclusion that "defendant's treatment of the dogs reflected something other than mere companionship." As to the vagueness challenge, the court found that defendant did not demonstrate that section 3(a)(4) fails to sufficiently enable a person of ordinary intelligence to understand what conduct the statute criminalizes or that it fails to provide police officers and the courts explicit standards. In fact, the court found that "defendant did not demonstrate compassion, sympathy or consideration for the dogs when he failed to provide an adequate habitat or ensure that bodily waste did not accumulate" and that this conduct fell squarely in the conduct addressed by the law. Thus, the court affirmed the lower court's judgment and rejected defendant's claims on appeal. | Case | |
| WA - Dog - Consolidated Dog Laws | West's RCWA 4.24.410; 9.08.010 - 90; 9A.76.200; 9.91.170 - 175; 16.10.010 - 40; 16.54.010 - 40; 16.70.010 - 60; 36.49.020 - 070; 77.12.077; 77.15.240, 245, 440; 77.32.525; 77.32.540 | WA ST 4.24.410; 9.08.010 - 90; WA ST 9A.76.200; WA ST 9.91.170 - 175; 16.10.010 - 40; 16.54.010 - 40; 16.70.010 - 60; 36.49.020 - 070; 77.12.077; 77.15.240, 245, 440; 77.32.525; 77.32.540 | These Washington statutes comprise the state's dog laws. Among the provisions include vaccination requirements, dog control zones in municipalities, dangerous dog laws, and provisions concerning hunting with dogs. | Statute | |
| Animal Legal Defense Fund, Inc. v. Aubertine | 991 N.Y.S.2d 482 (2014) | 119 A.D.3d 1202; 2014 N.Y. Slip Op. 05395; 2014 WL 3511059 (N.Y.A.D. 3 Dept.) | Petitioners seek, among other things, a declaration that force-fed foie gras is an adulterated food product and an order prohibiting the state respondents from allowing foie gras into the human food supply. Pre-answer motions to dismiss asserted, among other things, that petitioners lacked standing. Supreme Court granted dismissal upon such ground and petitioners appealed. Petitioner Stahlie contended he had standing based upon allegations that he occasionally ate foie gras at parties and other events and that this might increase his risk of developing secondary amyloidosis. The court, however, found the risk of exposure to be minimal and the indication of harm uncertain since Stahlie had no underlying medical conditions that might be related to an increased risk of secondary amyloidosism, that his exposure to foie gras was infrequent, and that he did not cite a situation of any person ever suffering secondary amyloidosis that was linked to foie gras. The Animal Legal Defense Fund argued that since it used its resources to investigate and litigate the alleged conduct of the state respondents, it had standing. The court, however, found that a finding of standing under this situation would essentially eliminate the standing requirement any time an advocacy organization used its resources to challenge government action or inaction. Lastly the court found that petitioners had not alleged ‘a sufficient nexus to fiscal activities of the state to allow for State Finance Law § 123-b standing.’ The lower court’s decision was therefore affirmed. | Case | |
| WA - Enumclaw - Breed - Chapter 7.08
 PIT BULL DOGS | ENUMCLAW, WA., MUNICIPAL CODE §§ 7.08.010 - 7.08.030 (1990) |
In Enumclaw, Washington, it is unlawful to keep, harbor, own or possess a pit bull dog, with exceptions for dogs licensed before the effective date of the ordinance. Such dogs are subject to certain requirements, such as proper confinement, the use of a leash and muzzle, posting “Beware of Dog” signs, the use of special orange collars, photographs and tattoos for identification purposes, keeping $100,000 liability insurance, and vaccinating the dog against rabies. Failure to comply may result in the humane destruction of the dog. |
Local Ordinance | ||
| Brayshaw v Liosatos | [2001] ACTSC 2 |
The appellant had informations laid against him alleging that he, as a person in charge of animals, neglected cattle 'without reasonable excuse' by failing to provide them with food. The appellant had been informed by a veterinarian that his treatment of the cattle was potentially a breach of the Animal Welfare Act 1992 (ACT) and that they were in poor condition. The evidence admitted did not rule out the possibility that the appellant's feeding of the cattle accorded with 'maintenance rations' and the convictions were overturned. |
Case |