Results
| Title | Citation | Alternate Citation | Agency Citation | Summary | Type |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| US - Endangered Species - Subpart E - Similarity of Appearance | 69 FR 4557 | 50 C.F.R. § 17.50 to .52 | This Subpart of the ESA regulations allows the designation of a species, which is not Endangered or Threatened but closely resembles an Endangered or Threatened species, as a "de facto" Endangered or Threatened species if the director of the USFWS determines the listing is necessary. Factors that influence this decision include the degree of difficulty enforcement personnel would have in distinguishing the species from an Endangered or Threatened species (including those cases where the criteria for recognition of a species are based on geographical boundaries); the additional threat posed to the Endangered or Threatened species by the loss of control occasioned because of the similarity of appearance; and the probability that so designating a similar species will substantially facilitate enforcement and further the purposes and policy of the Act. | Administrative | |
| ID - Facility Dog - § 19-3023 Child summoned as witness | I.C. § 19-3023 | This statutes provides that when a child is summoned in a criminal matter, a parent, counselor, friend, or a facility dog may stay in the courtroom during the child's testimony, unless the court finds that the defendant will be unduly prejudiced. When a child is summoned to witness in any non-criminal matter, a facility dog will be allowed to remain in courtroom during the child's testimony. | Statute | ||
| NC - Disaster - North Carolina Emergency Operations Plan | NCEOP 2021 | The North Carolina Emergency Operations Plan is published by the North Carolina Department of Public Safety. The plan has a specific section on animal protection that is designed to help protect both domestic and wild animals. In the section on "scope," the plan says that "[a]nimal Protection actions will be aimed at all animals, whether owned, stray, or domestic, that may need help during disaster situations." | Administrative | ||
| OH - Hunting - Chapter 1533. Hunting; Fishing. General Provisions. | R.C. § 1533.03 - 1533.031 | OH ST § 1533.03 - 1533.031 | This section reflects Ohio's hunter harassment provisions. No person shall purposely prevent or attempt to prevent any person from hunting, trapping, or fishing for a wild animal. A person who is or may be reasonably affected by the prohibited conduct can seek an injunction. The companion statute also provides that no person shall purposely prevent or attempt to prevent hunting by creating noise or loud sounds through the use of implements that are intended to affect the behavior of the wild animal being hunted. | Statute | |
| MI - Constitutional Provisions - Protection of Natural Resources | M. C. L. A. Const. Art. 4, § 52 | MI CONST Art. 4, § 52 | This section declares the protection, conservation, and development of the state's natural resources to be of paramount public concern and the legislature shall provide for the protection of the air, water and other natural resources of the state from pollution, impairment and destruction. | Statute | |
| People v. Arroyo | 777 N.Y.S.2d 836 (N.Y. 2004) | 3 Misc.3d 668, 2004 N.Y.Slip Op. 24067 |
This case presents the court with a novel question: Does a pet owner commit an act of cruelty, for which he or she could be prosecuted criminally, by not providing an ill pet (in this case, terminally ill) with medical care? Defendant charged with violation of New York's anticruelty statute and moved for dismissal. In engaging in statutory interpretation, the Court held that: (1) provision prohibiting the deprivation of "necessary sustenance" was vague when applied to defendant, and (2) that the provision prohibiting "unjustifiably" causing pain to an animal was also vague when applied to defendant. Motion granted. |
Case | |
| Benningfield v. Zinsmeister | 367 S.W.3d 561 (Ky.,2012) | 2012 WL 2361778 |
An 8-year-old boy and his sister were walking down a street when they were approached by a Rottweiler. Scared, the boy ran and was attacked by the dog, which caused the boy to suffer serious injuries. As a result, the mother of the child sued the owner of the dog and the landlord of the house where the dog resided under a Kentucky dog bite statute. The landlord won at both the trial and the appellate court level. Upon granting discretionary review for the case, the Kentucky Supreme Court investigated whether or not a landlord could be held strictly liable under the dog bite statute. The Court ruled that a landlord could, but only if the landlord permitted the dog to stay on or about the premises. Since the attack did not occur on or about the premises, the landlord was not found liable under the dog bite statute. |
Case | |
| US - AWA - Subpart D. Specifications/Standards for Nonhuman Primates | 9 C.F.R. § 3.75 to .92 | This portion of the AWA regulations contains the humane care provisions for non-human primates. Included are requirements for housing facilities, primary enclosures, provisions for psychological well-being, feeding, watering, sanitization, employee requirements, and transportation standards. | Administrative | ||
| State Holding Period Laws for Impounded Companion Animals |
Holding period laws are state requirements that determine how long an impounded animal must be “held” by a government entity (or contracted agent) before it can be released or euthanized. |
State map | |||
| MD - Liens - § 16-401. Lien for care or custody | Md. Code Ann., Com. Law § 16-401 | MD Code, Commercial Law, § 16-401 | Under Maryland law, any person who owns or operates a livery stable or other establishment who gives care or custody to livestock will have a lien on the livestock for any reasonable charge relating to: board and custody, training, veterinarian and blacksmith service, and other maintenance expenses. If the lien is not paid within 30 days after payment is due, the owner of the livery stable is entitled to sell the livestock. | Statute |