Results
| Title | Citation | Alternate Citation | Agency Citation | Summary | Type |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Canada - Manitoba Statutes. The Animal Care Act | S.M. 1996, c. 69 [C.C.S.M., A84] |
The Manitoba Animal Care Act sets out the requirements for animals in an owner's care. The Act allows animal protection officers to assist animals in distress. A person who contravenes any provision of this Act is guilty of an offence and is liable to a fine of not more than $5,000. for a first offence and not more than $10,000. for a subsequent offence, or to imprisonment for a term of not more than six months, or both. |
Statute | ||
| Gromer v. Matchett | 2010 WL 3467727 (Mo.App. S.D.) | Ordered Transferred to Mo.S.Ct. 2010 |
In this Missouri case, the defendant-farmer appeals an award of $12,250 to plaintiff-motorist, whose vehicle was struck by another vehicle after a horse coming from defendant's farm collided with the first vehicle. Defendant asserts that the Stock Law (Section 270.010) was inappropriately applied to him where he did not own the livestock (the horse) in question. Since plaintiff relied on the language of the Stock Law, which unambiguously refers only to "owners," in submitting her verdict directing instruction that allowed her to recover damages without proof of Defendant's negligence, the case must be reversed and remanded. This cause was Ordered Transferred to Mo.S.Ct. November 16, 2010. |
Case | |
| NJ - Borough of Magnolia - Title 6 - ANIMALS (CHAPTER 95. - ANIMALS) | Code of the Borough of Magnolia §§ 6.95-1 to 6.95-10 |
In Borough of Magnolia, New Jersey, any person desiring to operate a pet shop or kennel must obtain a license and must operate the establishment within the borough's business district. Thus, this ordinance contains provisions on applying for, renewing, and revoking a license. This ordinance also establishes animal care standards for pet shops and kennels, as well as requires that all dogs kept or maintained within these establishments wear a tag. Additionally, this ordinance also prohibits dogs kept in a kennel or a pet shop from going off the site’s premises except under certain circumstances. Anyone convicted of violating these provisions may be subject to a fine not exceeding $1,000, a term of imprisonment not exceeding 90 days, a period of community service not exceeding 90 days, or any combination thereof. |
Local Ordinance | ||
| AZ - Disaster planning - Arizona State Emergency Response and Recovery Plan | Arizona State Emergency Response and Recovery Plan | This part of Arizona's emergency response plan describes the state's responsibility toward pets and service animals. | Administrative | ||
| People v. Rogers | 708 N.Y.S.2d 795 (N.Y. 2000) | 184 Misc.2d 419; N.Y. Slip Op. 20246 | Defendant was convicted following jury trial in the Criminal Court of the City of New York of abandonment of animals. On appeal, the Supreme Court, Appellate Term, held that the warrantless entry into pet shop was justified under emergency doctrine and sufficient evidence supported his convictions. | Case | |
| WA - Importation - Chapter 16-54. Animal Importation | WASH. ADMIN. CODE §16-54-030 | WAC 16-54-030 | Washington requires health certificates for the importation of most animals into the state. | Administrative | |
| Revista Brasileira de Direito Animal Volume 9 |
Revista Brasileira de Direito Animal (Brazilian Animal Rights Review)Only in Original PortugueseTable of Contents for Volumes 1- 8
|
Policy | |||
| Webber v. Patton | 558 P.2d 130 (Kan. 1976) | 221 Kan. 79 (1976) |
Veterinary costs and consequential losses are also allowed in determining damages, according this Kansas case. It should be noted that the animal at issue here was a domestic pig versus a companion animal, and the award of damages was secured by a statute that allows recovery for all damages for attacks on domestic animals by dogs. |
Case | |
| Zimmerman v. Robertson | 854 P.2d 338 (Mont. 1993) | 259 Mont. 105 (1993) |
Defendant-veterinarian was contracted to castrate plaintiff’s horse. Post-surgical care resulted in a fatal infection of the horse. The court found that, indeed, expert testimony is required in malpractice cases, as negligence cannot be inferred from the existence of a loss. The court disagreed with plaintiff that defendant’s own "admissions" in his testimony at trial provided sufficient evidence of deviation from the standard of care to withstand a directed verdict by defendant. As to plaintiff’s argument regarding a lack of informed consent, the court noted that a medical malpractice claim premised on a theory of lack of informed consent is a separate cause of action rather than an "element" in an otherwise specifically alleged claim of professional negligence. |
Case | |
| WA - Dangerous Dog - 16.08.070. Dangerous dogs and related definitions | West's RCWA 16.08.070 | WA ST 16.08.070 | This Washington statute provides the definitions related to dangerous dogs, including dangerous dog, potentially dangerous dog, severe injury, and owner, among others. | Statute |