|Title||Citation||Alternate Citation||Agency Citation||Summary||Type|
|In re: Gus White||2014 WL 4311058 (U.S.D.A. May 13, 2014)||This Administrative Order revoked the Animal Welfare Act exhibitors license and assessed a $39,375 civil penalty to the owners of Collins Exotic Animal Orphanage. The owners of the license were also order to cease and desist from in particular, shall cease and desist from: failing to maintain complete records showing the acquisition, disposition, and identification of animals; failing to maintain programs of disease control and prevention, euthanasia, and adequate veterinary care under the supervision and assistance of a doctor of veterinary medicine; failing to provide veterinary care to animals in need of care; failing to provide food for rabbits that is free of contamination, wholesome, palatable, and of sufficient quantity and nutritive value for the rabbits; failing to keep food receptacles for rabbits clean and sanitized; failing to locate food receptacles for rabbits so as to minimize contamination by excreta; failing to construct housing facilities for animals so that they are structurally sound; failing to maintain housing facilities for animals in good repair; failing, during public exhibition, to maintain a sufficient distance or barrier between animals and the general viewing public to assure the safety of the animals and the viewing public; failing to provide natural or artificial shelter appropriate to the local climatic conditions for animals kept outdoors to afford the animals protection and to prevent discomfort to the animals; failing to enclose all outdoor housing facilities for animals with a perimeter fence of sufficient height; and failing to remove excreta from primary enclosures as often as necessary to prevent contamination of the animals contained in the primary enclosures and to minimize disease hazards.||Case|
|Smith v. Lane||832 N.E.2d 947 (Ill.App. 5 Dist. 2005)||358 Ill.App.3d 1126; 295 Ill.Dec. 497; 2005 WL 1714281||
In this Illinois case, the passenger of horse-drawn carriage brought action in negligence and strict liability against driver of carriage and owner of horse and carriage for injuries passenger received when carriage went off road and overturned. The lower court dismissed all of passenger's counts. On appeal, the Appellate Court held that, as matter of first impression, the passenger was not subject to provisions of EALA, and the alleged facts sufficient to state cause of action under state Animal Control Act.
|US - Permits - Subpart D. Conditions. § 13.42 Permits are specific.||67 FR 12824||50 C.F.R. § 13.42||
This regulation provides that permits issued to collect or otherwise take wildlife or plants are strictly construed.
|Wysotski v. Air Canada||
Airline mishandled shipment of pet cat, the container was damaged and cat escaped. Complaint on negligence and other grounds for $2.5 million in damages.
|OR - Assistance Animals - Assistance Animal/Guide Dog Laws||O. R. S. § 659A.141; 659A.143; 167.352; 609.100; 401.977; 811.035; 814.110||OR ST § 659A.141; 659A.143; 167.352; 609.100; 401.977; 811.035; 814.110||The following statutes comprise the state's relevant assistance animal and guide dog laws.||Statute|
|Eshleman v. Key||774 S.E.2d 96; 297 Ga. 364 (Ga., 2015)||2015 WL 3936075 (Ga., 2015)||A county police officer failed to securely fasten her police dog’s portable kennel; the dog escaped as a result and attacked an 11 year old boy. The father of the boy sued the county police officer, alleging that she failed to restrain the dog. The officer moved for summary judgment on the ground of official immunity. The trial court denied her motion and the appeals court affirmed that decision. On issuing a writ of certiorari, the Supreme Court of Georgia reviewed the case. As a county police officer and dog handler, the Court stated the officer was responsible for the care and maintenance of the dog at all times, even when she was not working. For that reason, the allegation that she failed to secure the dog outside her home concerned her performance of an official function and was presumptively entitled to official immunity—with two exceptions to that presumption. Since the father had not contended that the officer acted with malice or with intent to injure anyone, the issue was whether the officer acted with negligence in the performance of a ministerial function. Since the county had not given the officer specific directions about the extent to which the dog should be restrained and since a generalized duty of care stated in a state statute and county ordinance was not enough to amount to a ministerial duty, the Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals’ decision.||Case|
|Deanna Wilson, the guardian of her beloved Avain companions v. PETCO Animal Supplies, INC. and DOES 1-10||PETCO and plaintiff met for a settlement conference by order of the Superior Court before the Bar Association of the San Francisco Early Settlement Program. In this settlement, PETCO agreed to pay $7,000 for the dismissal of the suit and the plaintiff agreed to accept this sum with the knowledge that she will be barred from proceeding against PETCO for this incident in the future. PETCO also reaffirmed that is had discontinued selling the bird cage that was the subject of this action and that it will not reinstate this product in its stores with zinc levels that exceed the nationally accepted standard for avian toxicology.||Pleading|
|City of Sausalito v. Brian O'Neill||2002 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 12457 (N.D. Cal. 2002)||
In considering standing under the MMPA, the court found that the plaintiff city had only pure economic injury and had not shown that any harm would result to marine mammals protected under the MMPA.
|IA - Council Bluffs - Breed - Chapter 4.20 - ANIMAL CONTROL (Pit Bull Ordinance)||COUNCIL BLUFFS, IA., MUNICIPAL CODE § 4.20.112||
In Council Bluffs, Iowa, it is unlawful to own, possess, keep, exercise control over, maintain, harbor, transport, or sell any pit bull. There are exceptions for dogs already licensed if the owner meets certain requirements, such as being at least 18 years old, maintaining liability insurance of at least $100,000, the dog is sterilized and microchipped, the dog is confined and there is a "PIT BULL DOG" sign. Failure by the owner to comply shall subject the pit bull to immediate impoundment and disposal.
|TX - Hunting - Subchapter F. Unlawful Controlled Killing of or Attempting to Injure Dangerous Wild Animals.||V. T. C. A., Parks & Wildlife Code § 62.101 - 107||TX PARKS & WILD §§ 62.101 - 107||This Texas statute provides that no person may kill or attempt to injure a dangerous wild animal that is in captivity in this state or released from captivity in this state for the purpose of being killed.||Statute|