Results
Displaying 5991 - 6000 of 6638
| Title | Citation | Alternate Citation | Summary | Type |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| TX - Circus - Chapter 2152. Regulation of Circuses, Carnivals, and Zoos. | V. T. C. A., Occupations Code § 2152.001 - 202 (Repealed 2015) | TX OCC § 2152.001 - 202 | Note chapter repealed: Repealed by Acts 2015, 84th Leg., ch. 1 (S.B. 219), § 5.318(14), eff. April 2, 2015. This set of Texas laws concerns the regulation of carnivals, circuses, and zoos. However, circuses are specifically exempted from regulation if they are licensed by the USDA and if the circus provides proof of (mandatory) inspection at least once a year. "Circus" is defined as a commercial variety show featuring animal acts for public entertainment. In Texas, the Texas Board of Health must adopt standards for the operation of circuses, carnivals, and zoos that promote humane conditions for animals and protect the public health and safety. A person may not operate a circus, carnival, or zoo unless the person holds a license issued under this chapter for the circus, carnival, or zoo. A person who knowingly operates a circus without a license under this chapter commits a Class C misdemeanor. | Statute |
| NV - Dog - Consolidated Dog Laws | N. R. S. 193.021; N. R. S. 202.500; N. R. S. 206.150; N. R. S. 244.359; N. R. S. 269.225; N. R. S. 289.595; N. R. S. 503.631, 636; N. R. S. 568.370; N.R.S. 574.600 - 670; N.R.S. 575.020 | NV ST 193.021; N. R. S. 202.500; N. R. S. 206.150; N. R. S. 244.359; N. R. S. 269.225; N. R. S. 503.631; NV ST 568.370; NV ST 574.600 - 670; NV ST 575.020 | These statutes comprise Nevada's dog laws. Among the provisions include a link to proper care requirements for companion animals, animal control ordinance provisions, and the dangerous dog law among others. | Statute |
| CO - Aurora - Chapter 14 - ANIMALS | Chapter 14. Sec. 14-1 to 14-161 | The following comprises Aurora, Colorado's animal-related ordinances. In addition to the standard ordinances dealing with number restrictions, at-large animals, barking dogs, and licensing, the city has two important provisions. First, the city makes it unlawful to own, possess or keep any dog, rabbit, or cat over the age of 6 months that has not been spayed or neutered (subject to some exceptions). Second, it is unlawful for any person to have, own, possess, keep, exercise control over, maintain, harbor, transport, or sell within the city any pit bull or restricted breed of dog. "Restricted breeds" include any American Bulldog (Old Country Bulldog), Dogo Argentino, Canary Dog (Canary Island Dog, Presa Canario, Perro De Presa Canario), Presa Mallorquin (Pero De Presa Mallorquin, Ca De Bou), Tosa Inu (Tosa Fighting Dog, Japanese Fighting Dog, Japanese Mastiff), Cane Corso (Cane Di Macellaio, Sicilian Branchiero), Fila Brasileiro or any dog displaying the majority of physical traits of any one or more of the above breeds. | Local Ordinance | |
| Prasad v. Wepruk | 2004CarswellBC946 | 2004 BCSC 578 |
Plaintiff Prasad, an elderly newpaper-deliverer, was attacked in the street by defendant owner Wepruk's usually chained guard-dog, which escaped due to a rusted chain. The court found the defendant strictly liable under the doctrine of scienter's subjective test: he knew the dog was aggressive, but kept it anyway and it harmed Prasad. He was also liable under the objective test for negligence, for not taking reasonable precautions to ensure the dog's chain was in good repair, in order to prevent foreseeable harm to others. damages of $35,000 were awarded for Prasad's injuries and lost future earnings. |
Case |
| Chile - Cruelty - Criminal Code, Article 291 BIS and 291 TER | Criminal Code, Article 291 BIS and 291 TER | Article 291 BIS establishes the penalties for cruelty or mistreatment against animals. Article 291 TER defines animal cruelty and mistreatment. | Statute | |
| Students for Ethical Treatment of Animals (SETA) v. Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee of University of Oregon (IACUC) | 833 P.2d 337 (1992) | 113 Or.App. 523 (1992) |
Appeal of a circuit court decision finding a summary judgment that plaintiffs lacked standing to bring suit where a state university student organization and other parties brought suit against the university committee that supervised animal research, including a research proposal for cranial surgery on Macaque monkeys. On appeal, the Court of Appeals held that plaintiffs had an interest in the governmental decisions of the committee, had established a denial of access related to that interest, thus had standing to bring the suit. |
Case |
| RI - Dogs - Consolidated Dog Laws | Gen. Laws, 1956, § 4-13-1 - 44; § 4-13.1 - 15; § 4-19-1 - 24 | RI ST § 4-13-1 - 44; § 4-13.1 - 15; § 4-19-1 - 24 | These statutes comprise Rhode Island's dog laws. Among the provisions include licensing requirements, which are specified by county or town, vicious dog laws, and euthanasia provisions. | Statute |
| NC - Commerce - Chapter 113. Conservation and Development. | N.C.G.S.A. § 113-294 | NC ST § 113-294 | North Carolina law makes it a Class 2 misdemeanor to sell, possess for sale, or buy any wildlife. Further, the law specifically makes it a greater transgression (a Class 1 misdemeanor) to unlawfully take, possess, transport, sell, or buy any dead or alive bald or golden eagle, nest or egg. The taking of other animals listed like bears and cougars also incurs greater penalty. | Statute |
| American Dog Owners Ass'n v. City of Yakima | 777 P.2d 1046 (Wash.1989) | 113 Wash.2d 213 (Wash.1989) |
In this Washington case, plaintiff brought suit against the City of Yakima challenging an ordinance that banned “pit bulls” dogs. The Superior Court, Yakima County, granted city's motion for summary judgment, and plaintiffs appealed. Plaintiffs first argued that the ordinance is vague because a person of ordinary intelligence cannot tell what is prohibited. The Supreme Court disagreed, finding that the City used adequate standards for identification in the professional standards and illustrations to show that a particular dog meets the professional standard. Thus, the Court found that the ordinance gave sufficient notice of what was conduct prohibited. Summary judgment for the City was affirmed.
|
Case |
| CA - Parks - § 5008.1. Animals brought into parks; conditions; maintenance of Internet Web site | West's Ann. Cal. Pub. Res. Code § 5008.1 | This law allows the state parks director to determine when it is in the public interest to allow visitors to bring animals to units of the state park system. Animals brought in by visitors must be under immediate control of the visitor and must not pose a safety threat, create a public nuisance, or pose of threat to natural or cultural resources. The department may require a person bringing an animal into a state park system to provide proof of appropriate immunizations and valid licenses. In 2018, the legislature added a part to the law that states no later than July 1, 2020, the department shall establish and maintain on its Internet Web site a comprehensive, up-to-date list of each state park system unit with information on whether the unit or a portion of the unit allows dogs and additional information that may include, but is not limited to, the specific areas of the unit in which dogs are allowed and the total miles of trail in the unit that are open to dogs. | Statute |