|UK - Research Animals - The Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986 Amendment Regulations 2012||2012 No.||Protected animals are extended under the 1986 Act to include cephalopods (i.e., octopus or squid). The principles of replacement, reduction and refinement (the 3Rs), are encompassed in section 2A of the amendment; The Secretary of State must be satisfied that a scientific objective could not be achieved without using animals, by using fewer animals, or by causing less suffering.||Statute|
|NY - Research animals - § 239-b. Research dogs and cats||McKinney's Education Law § 239-b||NY EDUC § 239-b||This New York law, effective in 2016, provides that a publicly-funded higher education research facility must assess the health of the dog or cat and determine whether it is suitable for adoption after the research and testing on the animal is completed. That research facility must then make reasonable efforts to offer for adoption the dog or cat determined to be suitable for adoption, either through private placement or through an animal rescue/organization.||Statute|
|SC - Equine Activity Liability - Article 7. Equine Liability Immunity.||Code 1976 § 47-9-710 - 730||SC ST § 47-9-710 - 730||This South Carolina section provides that an equine activity sponsor or an equine professional is not liable for an injury to or the death of a participant resulting from an inherent risk of equine activity. The statute also requires the visible displaying of warning signs that alert participants to the limitation of liability by law. Failure to comply with the requirements concerning warning signs and notices provided in this section prevents an equine activity sponsor or equine professional from invoking the privileges of immunity provided by this article.||Statute|
|NE - Assistance Animal - Assistance Animal/Guide Dog Laws||Neb. Rev. St. § 49-801; Neb. Rev. St. § 20-126 - 131.04; Neb. Rev. St. § 28-1313 - 1314; Neb. Rev. St. § 54-603; Neb. Rev. St. § 28-1009.01||NE ST § 49-801; Neb. Rev. St. § 20-126 - 131.04; Neb. Rev. St. § 28-1313 - 1314; NE St. § 54-603; NE St. § 28-1009.01||The following statutes comprise the state's relevant service animal, assistance animal, and guide dog laws.||Statute|
|Chambers v. Justice Court Precinct One||95 S.W.3d 874 (Tex.App.-Dallas, 2006)||2006 WL 1792842 (Tex.App.-Dallas)||
In this Texas case, a justice court divested an animal owner of over 100 animals and ordered that the animals be given to a nonprofit organization. The owner sought review of the forfeiture in district court. The district court subsequently dismissed appellant's suit for lack of jurisdiction. Under the Texas Code, an owner may only appeal if the justice court orders the animal to be sold at a public auction. Thus, the Court of Appeals held that the statute limiting right of appeal in animal forfeiture cases precluded animal owner from appealing the justice court order.
|State v. Ziemann||705 N.W.2d 59 (Neb.App.,2005)||14 Neb. App. 117||
The petitioner-defendant challenged her criminal conviction for cruelly neglecting several horses she owned by asserting that her Fourth Amendment rights were violated. However, the court of appeals side stepped the petitioners claim that she had a legitimate expectation of privacy in a farmstead, that she did not own or reside on, because she leased the grass on the farmstead for a dollar by invoking the “open fields” doctrine. The court held that even if such a lease might implicate the petitioners Fourth Amendment rights in some circumstances, the petitioner here was only leasing a open field, which she cannot have a legitimate expectation of privacy in.
|How to Update Statutes||
|United States v. Kent State University||Slip Copy, 2016 WL 5107207 (N.D. Ohio Sept. 20, 2016)||
In this case, the United States Government brought an action against Kent State University alleging that the University’s failure to have any policy in place that would allow for the University to consider emotional support animals violated the Fair Housing Act. The parties resolved their differences in the form of a consent decree and asked the court to approve the decree. The court approved the consent decree but suggested that the parties make a few additions to the decree. The first suggestion that the court made was to specify what type of qualifications were necessary to make someone a “qualified third-party” for the purpose of making a statement to the University about an individuals need for an emotional support animal. Secondly, the court suggested that the University begin reviewing the logistics of how the University would manage having animals in its housing and how the animals would be properly cared for. Lastly, the court urged the University to look at whether or not the University offered sufficient break times between classes so that a student would have enough time to check on the animal and ensure that the animal was not neglected on a routine basis.
|OK - Licenses - § 22-115. Animals running at large--Regulation and taxation||11 Okl. St. Ann. § 22-115 to 115.1||OK ST T. 11 § 22-115 to 115.1||This Oklahoma statute provides that the municipal governing body may regulate or prohibit animals from running at large. The governing body may also regulate and provide for taxing the owners and harborers of dogs, and authorize the killing of dogs which are found at large in violation of any ordinance regulating the same.||Statute|
|MN - Veterinary - Chapter 156. Veterinarians. Board of Veterinary Medicine.||M.S.A. § 156.001 - 20||MN ST § 156.001 - 20||These are the state's veterinary practice laws. Among the provisions include licensing requirements, laws concerning the state veterinary board, veterinary records laws, and the laws governing disciplinary actions for impaired or incompetent practitioners.||Statute|