Results
Displaying 5971 - 5980 of 6638
| Title | Citation | Alternate Citation | Agency Citation | Summary | Type |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| MI - Pet Trusts - Chapter 700. Estates and Protected Individuals Code. Estates and Protected Individuals Code. | M. C. L. A. 700.2722 | MI ST 700.2722 | This Michigan statute provides that a trust for the care of a designated domestic or pet animal is valid (these trusts follow the terms for non-charitable trusts and thus, can be of a duration of up to 21 years). The trust terminates when no living animal is covered by the trust. Extrinsic evidence is admissible to prove the transferor's intent and the court may reduce the amount of the property transferred if it determines that that amount substantially exceeds the amount required for the intended use. | Statute | |
| Jason v. Parks | 638 N.Y.S.2d 170 (N.Y.A.D. 2 Dept., 1996) | 224 A.D.2d 494 (1996) |
In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for veterinary malpractice, the plaintiffs appeal. The court reaffirmed that it is well established that a pet owner in New York cannot recover damages for emotional distress caused by the negligent destruction of a dog. |
Case | |
| US - Air travel, service animals - Nondiscrimination on the Basis of Disability in Air Travel (proposed rules) | 2008 WL 2018571 (F.R.) | Dockets OST-2004-19482; OST-2005-22298; OST-2006-23999 |
The Department of Transportation is amending its Air Carrier Access Act (ACAA) rules to apply to foreign carriers. The final rule also adds new provisions concerning passengers who use medical oxygen and passengers who are deaf or hard-of-hearing. The rule also reorganizes and updates the entire ACAA rule. The Department will respond to some matters raised in this rulemaking by issuing a subsequent supplemental notice of proposed rulemaking. |
Administrative | |
| RI - Restaurant - § 21-27-12. Outdoor dining--Dogs permitted | Gen.Laws 1956, § 21-27-12 | RI ST § 21-27-12 | Rhode Island has the newest law. In July of 2016, a law enabling restaurant owners to allow a patron's dog to accompany the patron in the outdoor dining area during the hours designated by the owner of the restaurant became effective. The law is very similar to Maryland's by giving the restaurateur the ability to regulate the size and type of dog entering the area. The owner may also deny entry to the restaurant and can eject any patron accompanied by a dog at his or her own discretion. Signage explaining the policy and rules must be visibly posted. | Statute | |
| NE - Endangered Species - Article 8. Nongame and Endangered Species Conservation Act | Neb. Rev. St. § 37-801 to 811 | NE ST § 37-801 to 811 | These statutes comprise the Nebraska Nongame and Endangered Species Conservation Act. Included are the definitions used in the Act, the legislative intent behind the Act, and the duty of the commission that oversees the Act. Violation of the Act constitutes a Class II misdemeanor. | Statute | |
| KY - Equine Activity Liability Statute - Chapter 247. Promotion of Agriculture and Horticulture. Farm Animal Activities. | KRS § 247.401 - 4029 | KY ST § 247.401 - 4029 | This Kentucky statute embodies the the legislative intent to encourage farm animal activities activities by limiting the civil liability of those involved in such activities. Statutory definitions are provided, including "inherent risks of farm animal activities" and "engages in farm animal activity." The statute also requires the visible displaying of warning signs that alert participants to the limitation of liability by law. Failure to comply with the requirements concerning warning signs and notices provided in this section shall prevent a farm animal activity sponsor or farm animal professional from invoking the provisions of KRS 247.401 to 247.4029. | Statute | |
| North Carolina v. Nance | 149 N.C. App. 734 (2002) | 562 S.E.2d 557 (N.C.App., 2002) |
The appellate court held that the trial court erred in denying the motion to suppress the evidence seized by animal control officers without a warrant. Several days passed between when the officers first came upon the horses and when they were seized. The officers could have obtained a warrant in those days; thus, no exigent circumstances were present. |
Case | |
| Keep Michigan Wolves Protected v. State, Dep't of Nat. Res. | Not Reported in N.W.2d2016 WL 6905923 (2016) | Plaintiff, Keep Michigan Wolves Protected (KMWP), appealed an order of the Court of Claims concluding that PA 281 does not violate Michigan's Constitution or statutes, and the granting of summary disposition in favor of defendants, the State of Michigan, the Department of Natural Resources, and the Natural Resources Commission. The issue began in 2011 when the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service removed gray wolves from the federal list of endangered species, returning management of wolf populations to Michigan. In 2012, the governor of Michigan signed PA 520 into law, which added the wolf to the definition of "game" animals. Plaintiff KMWP organized a statewide referendum petition drive to reject PA 520 at the November 4, 2014 general election, which would have rendered PA 520 ineffective unless approved by a majority of voters. In 2013, Michigan's Governor signed into law PA 21 and PA 22, which granted the Natural Resources Commission (NRC) authority to manage wolves. In addition, the laws also gave qualified members of the military free game and fish licenses. Another petition drive was initiated by plaintiff and required signatures were collected to place the issue on the November 2014 ballot. However, in December 2013, before this, Citizens for Professional Wildlife Management (CPWM) circulated a petition to initiate the Scientific Fish and Wildlife Management Act also known as PA 281. This new law would reenact PA 520 and 21, giving the NRC authority for designating game animals, offering free military hunting and fishing licenses, and appropriating $1 million to manage invasive species. In May of 2014, the CPWM certified this initiative petition and submitted directly it to the Legislature to enact or reject the law. The Legislature adopted the law, which became known as PA 281. Notably, at the November 2014 election, a majority of voters rejected PA 520 and PA 21. Regardless, PA 281, which included the voter-rejected designation of the wolf as a game species, was signed into law and the NRC designated wolves as a game species effective March 2015. Following this, plaintiff filed the underlying complaint that challenged the constitutionality of PA 281, specifically that it violated the Title–Object Clause of Michigan's Constitution, Const 1963, art 4, § 24, which states that (1) a law must not embrace more than one object, and (2) the object of the law must be expressed in its title. The Court of Claims granted defendants' summary disposition motion, holding the the general purpose of PA 281 is to “manage fish, wildlife, and their habitats” and that all of the law's provisions relate to this purpose, and concluded that the law did not violate the single-object requirement of the Title–Object Clause. The Court of Appeals found that some provisions of PA 281 did not violate the Title-Object Clause including (1) free licenses to military and (2) appropriating $1 million to respond to the threat of invasive fish species. However, the court did find that the free licenses to members of the military has no necessary connection to the scientific management of fish, wildlife, and their habitats violating the single-object rule of the Title-Object Clause. While the court noted that there is a severability option with provisions of laws that violate the Title-Object Clause, the court cannot conclude the Legislature would have passed PA 281 without the provision allowing free hunting, trapping, and fishing licenses for active members of the military. Thus, this provision cannot be severed from PA 281, and, consequently, the court found PA 281 is unconstitutional. The court noted that its decision rests solely under an analysis of the Michigan Constitution and related cases. However, the court noted that plaintiff's assertion that the initiating petition by defendant put "curb appeal" of free military licenses and invasive species control to "surreptitiously" reenact a provision that would ensure wolves would be on the game species list was an "accurate" assessment. The court even said that PA 281 "conjures up images of a Trojan Horse, within which the ability to hunt wolves was cleverly hidden." The order granting summary judgment for defendants was reversed and the matter was remanded. | Case | ||
| MN - Assistance Animal - Assistance Animals/Guide Dog Laws | M. S. A. §§ 169.202; 343.20; 343.21; 363A.09; 363A.19; 15.001; 256C.001 - 256C.06; § 504B.113; § 604A.302; 609.226; § 609.833 | MN ST § 169.202; 343.20; 343.21; 363A.09; 363A.19; 15.001 ; 256C.001 - 256C.06; § 504B.113; § 604A.302; 609.226; § 609.833 | The following statutes comprise the state's relevant assistance animal and service animal laws. | Statute | |
| HI - Hunting - Chapter 183D. Wildlife | H R S § 183D-27.5 | HI ST § 183D-27.5 | This law reflects Hawaii's hunter harassment provision. The law states that no person shall intentionally prevent or attempt to prevent the lawful taking of game by a licensed person. Such prohibited acts include placing oneself in the line of fire; creating a visual, aural, olfactory, or physical stimulus to affect the behavior of game to be taken; affecting the condition or placement of personal property used in the taking of animals; and obstructing a person's access where the person intends to lawfully take game. Violation of this law incurs a fine of $500, thirty days imprisonment, or both. | Statute |