|Title||Citation||Alternate Citation||Agency Citation||Summary||Type|
|WV - Lien - § 38-11-4. Lien of bailee of animals or vehicles||W. Va. Code, § 38-11-4||WV ST § 38-11-4||This West Virginia law (as it relates to animals) states the a person who keeps a livery stable, or boarding stable for animals, or one who boards, pastures, feeds or trains animals for hire, has a lien upon such animals for the sum due him for the care, boarding, pasturage, feeding, or training of such animals, or the care, keeping of such animals. This lien exists even though such animals are permitted to be taken out of the possession of the one claiming such lien even if the contract has not yet terminated for the lien. The purchaser of such an animal, while out of the possession of the person claiming the lien, can take the property free of the lien unless he or she had actual notice of the lien at the time of purchase.||Statute|
|FL - Disaster - 252.3568. Emergency sheltering of persons with pets||West's F. S. A. § 252.3568 - 3569||FL ST § 252.3568 - 3569||
In Florida, there must be strategies for the evacuation of persons with pets in the state and local comprehensive emergency management plans.
|AZ - Equine Transport - Transporting equine in a cruel manner; violation;||A. R. S. § 3-1312; § 28-912||AZ ST § 3-1312; § 28-912||
These Arizona laws provide the requirements for transporting equines to slaughter. A vehicle used to transport equine for slaughter may have no more than one level or tier in the compartment containing the equine. Violation of the laws constitutes a misdemeanor.
|KS - Research - Article 21. Animal Research Facility||KS ADC 9-21-1 to 3||K.A.R. 9-21-1 to 3||
This set of regulations establishes standards for the housing, care, and maintenance of animals in research facilities. It also includes record-keeping requirements for research facility operators.
|WA - Initiative - Initiative 1401, Trafficking of animal species threatened with extinction||Initiative 1401 (2015)||Initiative 1401 would amend several sections of the Washington code (RCW 77.15.085, 77.15.100, and 77.15.425; reenacting and amending RCW 77.08.010). This measure would prohibit sale, purchase, trading, or distribution of elephant, rhinoceros, tiger, lion, leopard, cheetah, pangolin, marine turtle, shark, or ray species listed as endangered or vulnerable in the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species or the International Union for Conservation of Nature’s red list, including items made from listed species. Violations would be a gross misdemeanor or class-C felony. It would exempt certain distributions, including musical instruments and transfers for educational purposes. The measure passed by 71% voting "yes" for the initiative.||Statute|
|ST. LOUIS, I. M. & S. RY. CO. v. PHILPOT||77 S.W. 901 (Ark. 1903)||72 Ark. 23 (1903)||
In this Arkansas case, the plaintiff was the owner of a "valuable bloodhound bitch." In April of 1900, she was killed by a passenger train of the defendant. Plaintiff sued the St. Louis, Iron Mountain & Southern Railway Company for the damages he suffered by reason of the killing of his dog. He alleged in his complaint that the defendant carelessly and negligently ran one of its trains over and killed his bloodhound bitch, with a value of $250. The court found that the testimony of Miller, a man who bred bloodhounds, furnished the jury with information which was reasonably calculated to afford them assistance in arriving at a fair valuation of the dog. The evidence was sufficient to sustain the verdict, according to the court.
|CO - Ordinances - Animal control officers--Article 15. Regulation Under Police Power.||C. R. S. A. § 30-15-105||CO ST § 30-15-105||This Colorado statute provides that personnel engaged in animal control may issue citations or summonses and complaints enforcing the county dog control resolution or any other county resolution concerning the control of pet animals or municipal ordinance. Officers assigned to this capacity may be referred to as "peace officers."||Statute|
|UK - Riding - Riding Establishments Act 1964||Riding Establishments Act 1964||
An Act to regulate the keeping of riding establishments; and for purposes connected therewith.
|Chadd v. U.S.||794 F.3d 1104 (9th Cir. 2015)||2015 WL 4509174 (9th Cir., 2015)||The issue in this case was whether the United States may be sued under the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA) for the actions of the National Park Service (NPS) relating to a mountain goat that attacked and killed a Park visitor. Wife of the visitor, on her own behalf and as representative of his estate, sued the NPS, claiming officials breached their duty of reasonable care by failing to destroy the goat in the years leading up to her husband’s death. The District Court dismissed the case due to lack of subject matter jurisdiction. On appeal, the court sought to determine whether an exception to the FTCA’s waiver of sovereign immunity applied. The court found the NPS’s management policies manual did not direct or mandate the NPS to take action to kill the mountain goat, and thus the NPS's management of the goat fell within the discretionary function exception. Further, the NPS’s decision to use non-lethal methods to manage a mountain was susceptible to policy analysis, which fell within the discretionary exception as well. The lower court’s decision was therefore affirmed. Senior Circuit Judge Kleinfield filed a dissenting opinion.||Case|
|Assal v. Barwick (Kidwell)||A circuit court upheld and enforced a divorce settlement that granted the husband visitation of the couple's dog for one month each summer. After the dog had gotten loose during a past visit and the husband had driven with the dog in the trunk of his car, however, the wife had refused to turn the dog over. The husband later abandoned his fight for visitation with the dog. During the proceedings, however, the Animal Legal Defense Fund filed this amicus curiae brief to urge the court to include in its consideration the needs and interests of the dog. The attached brief sets forth reported case decisions and rulings of other courts that have grappled with the view that companion animals are more than mere chattel.||Pleading|