Results
Displaying 21 - 30 of 6637
| Title | Citation | Alternate Citation | Agency Citation | Summary | Type |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| CT - Exotic Animals - Sec. 26-54-1. Wildlife pen specifications | CT ADC § 26-54-1, CT ADC § 26-55-6 | Regs. Conn. State Agencies § 26-54-1; Regs. Conn. State Agencies § 26-55-6 | Connecticut regulation 26-54-1 gives the wildlife pen specifications for any bird or quadruped possessed under the provisions of section 26-54 or 26-55 of the General Statutes. In addition, Sec. 26-55-6 replaced 26-55-2 in 2012 (the rule on quadruped importation). Sec. 22-55-6 now divides animals into Categories 1 - 4 based on the dangerousness of the animal to people, whether it is an endangered or threatened species, and even the risk it poses to and the native environment. The rule then states that no person except certain entities like zoos, museums, USDA licensed exhibitors, and research facilities may possess Category One Wild Animals. Restrictions are also imposed on other categories of animals. The rule also details the grandfathering process for owning a primate that weighs less than 35 lbs. | Administrative | |
| IL - Ordinances - 5/3. Appointment of administrator; | 510 I.L.C.S. 5/3 | IL ST CH 510 § 5/3 | This Illinois statute provides that the County Board Chairman with the consent of the County Board shall appoint an Administrator who may appoint as many Animal Control Wardens to aid him or her as authorized by the Board. The Board is authorized by ordinance to require the registration and microchipping of dogs and cats and shall impose an individual animal and litter registration fee. All persons selling dogs or cats or keeping registries of dogs or cats shall cooperate and provide information to the Administrator as required by the Board. | Statute | |
| People v. Zimberg | 33 N.W.2d 104 (Mich. 1948) | 321 Mich. 655 (Mich. 1948) |
Defendants were charged with having in their possession in the city of Detroit with intent to sell pikeperch (yellow pickerel) that were undersized, contrary to a Michigan statute. In response to defendants' challenge to the constitutionality of the statute, the court noted that it is universally held in this country that wild game and fish belong to the state and are subject to its power to regulate and control; that an individual may acquire only such limited or qualified property interest therein as the state chooses to permit. Defendants also contended the statute violated equal protection. The court disagreed, finding the argument is without foundation in fact, as the statute makes no discrimination. |
Case | |
| OR - Rehabilitation, wildlife - Chapter 635. Department of Fish and Wildlife. | OR ADC 635-044-0200 - 635-044-0310 | OAR 635-044-0200 - 635-044-0310 (repealed 2015) | [Note: repealed 2015] Under this set of Oregon regulations, any person desiring to hold any bird, mammal, amphibian or reptile for the purpose of wildlife rehabilitation must first obtain a Wildlife Rehabilitation Permit from the Department of Fish and Wildlife. The requirements and conditions to obtain a permit is also provided. In addition to an Oregon Wildlife Rehabilitation Permit, persons possessing this permit must also obtain a federal permit for species protected by federal law and provide a copy of the current valid federal permit to the Department. Other sections provide prohibited species under the permit and facility requirements. | Administrative | |
| WI - Domestic Violence - 813.12. Domestic abuse restraining orders and injunctions | Wis. Stat. Ann. § 813.12, 813.122, 813.123 | W. S. A. 813.12, 813.122, 813.123 | These Wisconsin statutes concern restraining orders or injunctions in domestic abuse cases, child abuse cases, and cases filed by "individuals as risk." In each of these laws, there are protections for “household pets,” defined as domestic animals that are not farm animals, as defined in s. 951.01(3), that are kept, owned, or cared for by the petitioner or by a family member or a household member of the petitioner. In both cases of domestic abuse and child abuse, a judge or circuit court commissioner shall issue a temporary restraining order ordering the respondent to refrain from removing, hiding, damaging, harming, or mistreating, or disposing of, a household pet, to allow the petitioner or a family member or household member of the petitioner acting on his or her behalf to retrieve a household pet, or any combination of these remedies requested in the petition. The domestic abuse and child abuse laws then outline the procedures for obtaining an injunction that includes those protections for domestic pets if requirements are met under the laws. In section 813.123, an "individual at risk," may also seek a TRO and injunction that orders the respondent to refrain from removing, hiding, damaging, harming, or mistreating, or disposing of, a household pet and allow the individual at risk or a guardian, guardian ad litem, family member, or household member of the individual at risk acting on his or her behalf to retrieve a household pet. | Statute | |
| ME - Exotic Pets - Chapter 723. Facility Licenses. | 7 M. R. S. A. § 3931-B (§ 3931-B. Repealed. Laws 2011, c. 100, § 13, eff. May 19, 2011) | REPEALED: This Maine statute outlines the requirements that apply to wolf hybrid kennels. A person who operates a wolf hybrid kennel must register with the department. The offspring of a wolf hybrid must be permanently identified prior to transferring ownership or care of the animal. Failure to comply with the provisions of this section results in a civil violation with a forfeiture not to exceed $1,000. (For other exotic pet laws in Maine, see Chapter 730-A. Breeding, Sale and Transportation of Small Mammals). | Statute | ||
| FL - Cruelty, Humane Slaughter - Consolidated Cruelty Statutes/Humane Slaughter Laws | West's F. S. A. § 828.01 - 828.43; West's F. S. A. § 768.139 | FL ST 828.01 - 828.43; FL ST § 768.139; FL ST § 843.19 | This section comprises the Florida anti-cruelty laws. Under this section, the word "animal" includes every living dumb creature. The misdemeanor violation of animal cruelty (section 828.12) occurs when a person unnecessarily overloads, overdrives, torments, deprives of necessary sustenance or shelter, or unnecessarily mutilates, or kills any animal, or carries in or upon any vehicle, any animal in a cruel or inhumane manner. A person who intentionally commits an act to any animal, or a person who owns or has the custody or control of any animal and fails to act, which results in the cruel death, or excessive or repeated infliction of unnecessary pain or suffering is guilty of a felony of the third degree. Psychiatric or psychological counseling are also mandatory for convicted offenders. The section also criminalizes animal abandonment and neglect as well as animal fighting. | Statute | |
| Nikolic v. Seidenberg | 610 N.E.2d 177 (Ill. App. Ct. 1993) |
When the pet owner adopted a dog, she signed a contract agreeing to have her dog spayed at the vet's facility and to return the dog to the vet if it was sick. For days after the surgery the dog was ill so the other vet performed exploratory surgery and repaired a cut in the dog's intestine. The pet owner filed an action to recover the medical expenses and the lower court granted the vet's motion to dismiss. The reviewing court held that the language in the contract was not sufficiently clear and explicit to exculpate the vet from negligence because the vet was not a party to the contract and thus not a direct beneficiary of the contract. |
Case | ||
| TX - Service animals - § 434.029. Service Dog Pilot Program for Certain Veterans | V.T.C.A., Government Code § 434.029 | TX GOVT § 434.029 | The commission by rule shall establish a pilot program for veterans to assist in mitigating the symptoms of military service-related post-traumatic stress disorder, traumatic brain injury, or military sexual trauma through the provision of a service dog. | Statute | |
| Friends of Animals v. Ashe | 808 F.3d 900 (D.C. Cir. 2015) | 2015 WL 9286948 (D.C. Cir. Dec. 22, 2015) | Friends of Animals, a non-profit animal advocacy organization, filed suit against the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service ("the Service") in 2013, after the Service issued no initial or final determinations for 39 species of sturgeon the organization petitioned as endangered or threatened. The Endangered Species Act (ESA) requires that the Service must make a determination within 90 days for an initial determination or 12 months for a final determination after a petition is received from an interested party. However, there is also a provision in the ESA that the plaintiff must give the Service 60-days notice before filing suit. The District Court held that Friends of Animals did not give the Service adequate notice before filing suit and dismissed the complaint. On appeal, this court agreed, finding that Friends of Animals "did not wait until after the issuance of the positive initial determinations to provide 60 days' notice of the allegedly overdue final determinations." In dicta, the Court noted that "[t]he Service's approach may not be the most efficient," but the deadlines are mandatory in the statutes. Thus, its suit to compel the final determination on the listings was barred and the judgment of the District Court was affirmed. | Case |