|Title||Citation||Alternate Citation||Agency Citation||Summary||Type|
|Brazil - Crimes - Brazilian Environmental Crimes Law||Law 9, 605 (Feb 12, 1998)||
This law of Brazil seeks to protect wildlife and plants of the country, particularly endangered species.
|MA - Equine transport - License plates for vehicles transporting equine animals||M.G.L.A. 129 § 46 - 48||MA ST 129 § 46 - 48||This Massachusetts law provides that vehicles transporting equines must have a special license plate. Also, the use of multiple deck vehicles or the so-called "possum belly" vehicle used in the transportation of equine animals is prohibited.||Statute|
|MI - Grosee Pointe Woods - Breed - Sec. 6-94. - Vicious dogs and other vicious animals prohibited.||GROSSE POINTE WOODS, MI., MUNICIPAL CODE § 6-94||
The municipal code of Grosse Pointe Woods, Michigan, makes it unlawful for any person to own, harbor or keep any pit bull terrier (as defined in the law including certain mixed breed dogs). Any dog determined to be a pit bull terrier by a court shall be destroyed or removed from the city.
|Carver v. Ford||591 P.2d 305 (Okla. 1979)||
The owners rented a stall from the tort victim for their heifer. The heifer escaped into the yard and crashed into a gate whereupon the gate then hit the tort victim in the mouth and broke several teeth. The Supreme Court of Oklahoma held that the heifer was not running at large, that the heifer escaped from its stall through no fault of the owners, that strict liability for trespass under Okla. Stat. tit. 4. sec. 98 (1965) was not applicable, and that any liability of the owners was required to be predicated upon negligence.
|US - Disease - African rodents and other animals that may carry the monkeypox virus. 21 C.F.R. § 1240.63||21 C.F.R. § 1240.63 [Reserved by 73 FR 51919]||
The CDC and the FDA banned the possession, sale, and distribution of rodents suspected of spreading monkeypox. Note: this regulation has since been deleted and reserved.
|CT - Cruelty, reporting - § 17a-100a. Reporting of neglected or cruelly treated animals.||C.G.S.A. § 17a-100a, C.G.S.A. § 17a-100c||Conn. Gen. Stat. Ann. § 17a-100a (West), Conn. Gen. Stat. Ann. § 17a-100c (West)||
These Connecticut statutes require state employees who work with children and families to also report suspected animal harm, neglect, or cruelty. The statutes explain how the reporting should be completed and describes the implementation of training programs for employees to recognize animal abuse. The statutes also discuss the development of an annual report on acutal or suspected instances of animal neglect or cruelty within the state.
|MO - Impound - Chapter 273. Dogs--Cats. Local Option Dog Tax.||V. A. M. S. 273.100||MO ST 273.100||This Missouri statute provides that every city or town marshal of every incorporated city or town shall seize and impound all dogs found running at large without collars around their necks. These dogs will be kept for a period of one week after which they shall be put to death by humane methods. The statute further states that any marshal who shall fail or refuse to take up and impound any such dog shall be guilty of a misdemeanor and on conviction thereof fined not less than five dollars nor more than twenty-five dollars.||Statute|
Materials from South Africa
(Provided by Melissa Lewis)
|ID - Dangerous Dogs running at large - Chapter 28. Dogs.||I.C. § 25-2805||ID ST § 25-2805||This Idaho statute provides that any person who lets his or her dog run at large after a complaint has been made to the sheriff shall be guilty of an infraction punishable as provided in section 18-113A, Idaho Code. Any person who lets his or her dog physically attack someone when not provoked shall be guilty of a misdemeanor in addition to any liability as provided in section 25-2806, Idaho Code. For a second or subsequent violation of this subsection, the court may, in the interest of public safety, order the owner to have the vicious dog destroyed or may direct the appropriate authorities to destroy the dog.||Statute|
|Ruden v. Hansen||206 N.W.2d 713 (Iowa 1973)||
This appeal stems from an action against a defendant veterinarian for the alleged negligent vaccination of plaintiff’s pregnant hogs (gilts). The court articulated the standard of care: "As a veterinarian defendant was duty bound to bring to his service the learning, skill and care which characterizes the profession generally. In other words, the care and diligence required was that as a careful and trustworthy veterinarian would be expected to exercise. . . We are convinced the correct standard of the veterinarian's care should be held to that exercised generally under similar circumstances."