|Title||Citation||Alternate Citation||Agency Citation||Summary||Type|
|Tilson v. Russo||30 A.D.3d 856 (N.Y.A.D. 3 Dept., 2006),||2006 WL 1703632 (N.Y.A.D. 3 Dept.), 818 N.Y.S.2d 311||
In this New York case, plaintiff, an experienced recreational horse rider, was bitten by a horse she intended to use to practice her techniques at defendant's stable. The rider then brought a negligence action against owners of horse that bit her on the shoulder. In affirming the lower court's granting of summary judgment, the appellate court found that rider's injury occurred in the context of her participation in the recreational sporting activity of horseback riding, for purposes of primary assumption of the risk principles. She was aware of the inherent risks in sporting events involving horses, had an appreciation of the nature of the risks, and voluntarily assumed those risks.
|ERIC SANDLE, plaintiff v. JEFRI DAVIS, and DOES 1-20 inclusive, defendant||This complaint arose from the intentional shooting of plaintiff's dog by defendant. Plaintiff was on his property pruning a tree when defendant shot plaintiff's dog, who was in the street at the time approximately three feet away from defendant. As a result of the shooting, plaintiff's dog is paralyzed in the back half of his body and suffers from bladder and bowel difficulties. Three causes of action were raised in the complaint: (1) intentional infliction of emotional distress; (2) conversion; and (3) violation of California Civil Code of Procedure Section 3340 (relating to damage to animals).||Pleading|
|TX - Rabies control - § 169.22. Definitions||25 TX ADC § 169.22||25 TAC § 169.22||This code is the definition section for the Texas Administrative Code's regulations on rabies control.||Administrative|
|WA - Ordinances - 16.10.040. Dog control zones--Regulations--License fees, collection, disposition||West's RCWA 16.10.040||WA ST 16.10.040||This Washington statute provides that the county commissioners shall by ordinance promulgate the regulations to be enforced within a dog control zone. These shall include provisions for the control of unlicensed dogs and the establishment of license fees.||Statute|
|AU - Cruelty - Queensland Animal Care and Protection Act 2001 (QLD)||Queensland Animal Care and Protection Act 2001||
The purposes of this Act are to promote the responsible care and use of animals; provide standards for the care and use of animals that--achieve a reasonable balance between the welfare of animals and the interests of persons whose livelihood is dependent on animals; and to allow for the effect of advancements in scientific knowledge about animal biology and changes in community expectations about practices involving animals; to protect animals from unjustifiable, unnecessary or unreasonable pain; to ensure the use of animals for scientific purposes is accountable, open and responsible. Attached pdf is the 2003 reprint.
|Animal Protection and Rescue League v. California||Slip Copy, 2008 WL 315709 (S.D.Cal.)||
Plaintiffs move for a temporary restraining order (TRO) to compel defendant City of San Diego to place a seasonal rope barrier at the La Jolla Children's Pool Beach to limit human interaction with harbor seals during pupping season. In denying the TRO, the court noted that plaintiffs failed to identify a single incident of harassment occurring since December 15, 2007 (the beginning of the pupping season) or any causal nexus between miscarriages and people walking up to the seals. While the parties agree placement of the barrier would not harm people and act as an effective tool, the court noted that the focus of irreparable harm is on the harm sought to be prevented not on the difficulty in carrying out the task.
|GA - Avondale Estates - Chapter 1: General Provisions & Chapter 4: Animals and Fowl||Code of Ordinances, City of Avondale Estates, Georgia §§ 1-8,4-1, 4-5, 4-6, 4-14, 4-15||
In Avondale Estates, Georgia, animal fighting is not only prohibited by ordinance, but an animal trained for fighting is also considered a public nuisance, and an abused and dangerous animal. This ordinance provides provisions for each of the respective categories, as well as penalties for the violations. Notably, the city will not respond to a citizen's compliant about a violation of this chapter if the citizen chooses to remain anonymous.
|TX - Horse - Sale of Horsemeat (Chapter 149. Sale of Horsemeat for Human Consumption)||V. T. C. A., Agriculture Code § 149.001 - 007||TX AGRIC § 149.001 - 007||
These statutes prohibit the sale of horsemeat, the possession of horsemeat with the intent to sell, and the knowing transfer of horsemeat to a person who intends to sell it for human consumption. Horsemeat is defined as the flesh of an animal of the genus equus. Prima facie evidence of an offense is prescribed by these statues and includes, for example, the presence of horsemeat in a restaurant or cafe. The penalty for an offense may be a fine of up to a $1,000, confinement for not less than 30 days and not more than two years, or both a fine and confinement.
|ME - Horsemeat - § 2163. Sale of horsemeat||22 M.R.S.A. § 2163||ME ST T. 22 § 2163||
This Maine statute provides that no person shall transport, receive for transportation, sell or offer for sale or distribution any equine meat or food products thereof unless said equine meat is plainly and conspicuously labeled, marked, branded and tagged “horsemeat” or “horsemeat products” unless such equine meat is conspicuously branded and labeled and a notice containing the words “horsemeat and horsemeat products sold here” is conspicuously displayed in said place of business. Any person, firm or corporation who shall violate any of the provisions of this section shall be punished by a fine of not more than $100 for the first offense and by a fine of not more than $200 for each subsequent offense, and the District and Superior Courts shall have concurrent jurisdiction of the offense.
|US - Marine Mammals - Feeding Populations of Marine Mammals in the Wild||1991 WL 301955 (F.R.)||Docket No. 900807-1050||
NMFS is issuing a final rule that amends the definition of "take" under the Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA) to include feeding marine mammals in the wild, and adds a new definition of "feeding." As a result, feeding dolphins, porpoise, whales, seals and sea lions in the wild will be prohibited unless the feeding is incidental to another activity such as the routine discard of fish bycatch or discharges from processing plants or vessels.