Results
| Title | Citation | Alternate Citation | Agency Citation | Summary | Type | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Derecho Animal Volume 11 Núm 3 |
|
Policy | |||||||||
| VA - Restaurants, animals - 2 VAC 5-585-3310. Prohibiting animals. | 2 VA ADC 5-585-3310 | 2 VAC 5-585-3310 | This Virginia regulation states that dogs may be allowed in outdoor dining areas if: (1) the outdoor dining area is not enclosed with floor-to-ceiling walls; (2) there is a separate entrance; (3) there is a sign at the main entrance stating that dogs are allowed in the outdoor dining area that is easily observable by the public; (3) food and water provided to dogs is served using equipment not used for human food service or is put in single-use receptacles; (4) dogs are not allowed to sit on chairs, benches, seats, or tables; (5) dogs are kept on a leash or within a pet carrier and under the control of adults at all times; (6) the establishment provides a means for picking up dog messes; and (7) there is a sign outlining some of these requirements observable to the public. | Administrative | |||||||
| TN - Ordinances - § 5-1-120. Dogs and cats; licenses, shelters and other animal control facilities | T. C. A. § 5-1-120 | TN ST § 5-1-120 | This Tennessee statute outlines the broad police power counties have with respect to dog and cats. It provides that counties, by resolution of their respective legislative bodies, may license and regulate dogs and cats, establish and operate shelters and other animal control facilities, and regulate, capture, impound and dispose of stray dogs, stray cats and other stray animals. | Statute | |||||||
| Journal of Animal and Natural Resource Law Vol. 8 |
Published by the students of Michigan State University College of LawJournal of Animal & Natural Resource Law Vol. VIII (2012)The table of contents is provided below. |
Policy | |||||||||
| Southall v. Gabel | 277 N.E.2d 230 (Ohio App. 1971) | 28 Ohio App.2d 295 (1971) |
This case resulted from the alleged negligent transport of a horse that resulted in a drastic change in the horse's temperament (to a "killer horse"), which ultimately led to its destruction by its owner. Before trial, defendant demurred to plaintiff's petition on the ground that the action was barred under R.C. s 2305.11, the act being 'malpractice' and therefore required to be brought within one year after the termination of treatment. The Court of Appeals held that the trial court's decision overruling the demurrer to plaintiff's petition was correct, 'the petitioner is based on negligence for the transporting rather than malpractice.' Further, the Court held that until the Supreme Court speaks, veterinarians are not included in the definition of malpractice (reversed and remanded - See , 293 N.E.2d 891 (Ohio, Mun.,1972). |
Case | |||||||
| Cascadia Wildlands v. Dep't of Fish and Wildlife | 455 P.3d 950 (Or.App., 2019) | 300 Or.App. 648 (Or.App., 2019) | Oregon Fish and Wildlife Commission ("Respondent") removed the species Canis lupus (gray wolf) from the list of species protected under the Oregon Endangered Species Act (OESA). Cascadia Wildlands, Center for Biological Diversity, and Oregon Wild ("Petitioners") sought judicial review of the amendment to Oregon law. The Petitioners contended that the decision to delist exceeded the commission’s statutory authority and did not comply with applicable rulemaking procedures. After the Petitioners filed their petition, the Oregon legislature passed House Bill 4040 which ratified the administrative rule that the Respondent promulgated delisting the gray wolf. The Respondents argued that the passage of the bill made the Petitioners' petition for judicial review moot. The Petitioners argued that the Oregon law ratifying the administrative rule had no legal effect and was merely an expression of legislative agreement. The Court held that the legislature using the word “ratify” in the statute indicated that they intended to confirm that the Commission’s rule delisting the gray wolf was legally satisfied, therefore, rendering judicial review moot. The Petitioners also contended that the statute violated the separation of powers because the statute performed an entirely judicial function by neither appealing nor amending the statute. Petitioners asserted that evaluating whether a particular agency satisfied requirements of law is a fact-specific inquiry which is reserved for the court. The Court held that the statute did not violate the separation of powers. The Court ultimately held that the Petitioners' rule challenge was moot. The petition for judicial review was ultimately dismissed. | Case | |||||||
| RI - Shark - § 20-1-29. Trade in shark fins | Gen.Laws 1956, § 20-1-29 | RI ST § 20-1-29 | This Rhode Island law, effective in 2017, prohibits the possession, sale, offering for sale, trading, or distribution of shark fin. “Shark fin” means the raw, dried, or otherwise processed detached fin or the raw, dried, or otherwise processed detached tail of a shark. Even if a person holds a license to take sharks, he or she must immediately destroy any shark fin separated from the shark unless used by the person for the purposes of taxidermy and subsequent display. Violation incurs a fine or not less than $500 nor more than $1,000 imprisonment of up to 90 days, or both. | Statute | |||||||
| WA - Ordinances - 35.27.370. Specific powers enumerated | West's RCWA 35.27.370 | WA ST 35.27.370 | This Washington statute provides that the council of said town shall have power to pass ordinances not in conflict with the Constitution and laws of this state, or of the United States. Specifically, the council may regulate, restrain, or prohibit the running at large of any and all domestic animals within the city limits, or any part or parts thereof, and to regulate the keeping of such animals within any part of the city; to establish, maintain and regulate a common pound for estrays, and to appoint a poundkeeper, who shall be paid out of the fines and fees imposed on, and collected from, the owners of any impounded stock. | Statute | |||||||
| OR - Pet Dealers - 609.520. Inspection of records; procedure for obtaining animal held by dealer; | O. R. S. § 609.520 | OR ST § 609.520 | This Oregon statute sets out the right of a person to inspect a pet dealer's business for the purpose of finding a lost companion animal. The statute also outlines acceptable methods to prove ownership and the procedure for resolving a dispute of ownership. | Statute | |||||||
| WV - Charleston - Chapter 10: Animals (Article IV. Urban Deer Management) | Code of the City of Charleston, West Virginia § 10-171 |
This Charleston, West Virginia ordinance allows a person to hunt deer within city limits, but only upon certain conditions. For instance, a person must obtain a permit from the city, must hunt only with a bow and arrow, and must hunt only on certain tracts of land—amongst other things—in order to be compliant with these provisions. A violation of this ordinance is a misdemeanor and may result in fines ranging from $10 to $500, imprisonment for up to 30 days, or both. Additionally, a violation may suspend or revoke a person's hunting permit. |
Local Ordinance |