Results
| Title | Citation | Alternate Citation | Agency Citation | Summary | Type |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| IL - Swap Meets - 50/24.1. Swap meets | 510 I.L.C.S. 50/24.1 | IL ST CH 510 § 50/24.1 | This law requires that swap meet organizers provide the State with certain records about the presence and sale of animals. | Statute | |
| CITES - Non-Detriment Findings Checklist for CITES |
Quick summary of document to aid CITES Scientific Authorities in make a decision about whether a export of an appendix II species is acceptable by being non-detrimental. |
Treaty | |||
| FL - Assistance Animal - Florida's Assistance Animal/Guide Dog Laws | West's F. S. A. § 413.08 - 081; West's F. S. A. § 316.1301, 1303; West's F. S. A. § 760.08 | FL ST § 413.08 - 081; FL ST § 316.1301, 1303; FL ST § 760.08 |
The following statutes comprise the state's relevant assistance animal and guide dog laws. |
Statute | |
| AZ - Pet Sales - Title 44. Trade and Commerce. Chapter 11. Regulations Concerning Particular Businesses. | A. R. S. 44-1799 - 1799.11 | AZ ST 44-1799 - 1799.11 |
This Arizona statutory section comprises the state's pet shop laws. The section requires that retail pet sellers provide purchasers a notice of rights that includes a statement of good health signed by a veterinarian. Purchasers have fifteen days to return unhealthy or diseased dogs and receive a refund or compensation for reasonable veterinary expenses. |
Statute | |
| Davis v. Animal ControlCity of Evansville | 948 N.E.2d 1161 (Ind., 2011) | 2011 WL 2493762 (Ind.) |
Dog attack victim sued city and its animal control department, seeking damages for injuries he sustained from a dog attack in his neighborhood. The victim claimed that the city failed to enforce its animal control ordinance. The Supreme Court held that city and its animal control department had law enforcement immunity because the Tort Claims Act provided immunity to governmental entities for any loss due to failure to enforce a law.
|
Case | |
| IN RE: DONALD STUMBO, D/B/A STUMBO FARMS | 43 Agric. Dec. 1079 (U.S.D.A.) | 1984 WL 54981 (U.S.D.A.) |
Imposition of $4,000 civil penalty was appropriate under 7 USCS § 2149(b) where respondent committed numerous, serious violations of Animal Welfare Act, respondent handled large number of animals, and violations continued after respondent was advised in writing of violations and given opportunity to correct them. |
Case | |
| NM - Rehabilitation, wildlife - 19.35.5. Wildlife Rehabilitation Permits | 19.35.5 NMAC | N.M. Admin. Code 19.35.5 |
The stated objective of this regulation is to establish and implement a system for the issuance and use of permits for the rehabilitation of sick, injured, orphaned or otherwise incapacitated wildlife for return to the wild or other authorized disposition in New Mexico. |
Administrative | |
| In re: Gus White | 2014 WL 4311058 (U.S.D.A. May 13, 2014) | This Administrative Order revoked the Animal Welfare Act exhibitors license and assessed a $39,375 civil penalty to the owners of Collins Exotic Animal Orphanage. The owners of the license were also order to cease and desist from in particular, shall cease and desist from: failing to maintain complete records showing the acquisition, disposition, and identification of animals; failing to maintain programs of disease control and prevention, euthanasia, and adequate veterinary care under the supervision and assistance of a doctor of veterinary medicine; failing to provide veterinary care to animals in need of care; failing to provide food for rabbits that is free of contamination, wholesome, palatable, and of sufficient quantity and nutritive value for the rabbits; failing to keep food receptacles for rabbits clean and sanitized; failing to locate food receptacles for rabbits so as to minimize contamination by excreta; failing to construct housing facilities for animals so that they are structurally sound; failing to maintain housing facilities for animals in good repair; failing, during public exhibition, to maintain a sufficient distance or barrier between animals and the general viewing public to assure the safety of the animals and the viewing public; failing to provide natural or artificial shelter appropriate to the local climatic conditions for animals kept outdoors to afford the animals protection and to prevent discomfort to the animals; failing to enclose all outdoor housing facilities for animals with a perimeter fence of sufficient height; and failing to remove excreta from primary enclosures as often as necessary to prevent contamination of the animals contained in the primary enclosures and to minimize disease hazards. | Case | ||
| CO - Pet Shop - Article 80. Pet Animal Care and Facilities Act | C. R. S. A. § 35-80-101 - 117 | CO ST § 35-80-101 to 117 | This Colorado Act regulates pet animal facilities (i.e., shelters, large kennels, and breeders). The Act covers licensing of the facilities and those activities deemed unlawful, such as selling a kitten or puppy under the age of 8 weeks and refusing a lawful inspection. | Statute | |
| UK - Zoos - Zoo Licensing Act 1981 | 1981 c. 37 |
The Zoo Licensing Act 1981 is an Act to regulate by licence the conduct of zoos. The Act defines a zoo "[as] an establishment where wild animals are kept for exhibition to the public otherwise than for the purposes of a circus and otherwise than as a pet shop; and this Act applies to any zoo to which members of the public have access, with or without charge for admission, on more than seven days in any period of 12 consecutive months". |
Statute |