Results
| Title | Citation | Alternate Citation | Summary | Type |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Smegal v. Gettys | 48 So.3d 431 (La.App. 1 Cir., 2010) | 2010 WL 4272594 (La.App. 1 Cir.) |
Plaintiff Steven Smegal appeals a judgment that found him 50% at fault in a dog bite case. The incident occurred after the dog owned by Smegal's neighbor (Gettys) ran into the street and was hit by a school bus. Smegal approached the injured dog too closely and was bitten on his ankle. The Court of Appeal, First Circuit affirmed the lower court's finding. The court held that Smegal's actions did not constitute provocation where the dog's owners were also approaching the injured dog in an "equally provocative" manner. As to allocation of fault, the court found that while it was Gettys' failure to restrain the dog that was the ultimate cause of the accident, Smegal chose to approach the injured dog despite his training and knowledge as a police officer. Thus, this set of facts supported the trial court's allocation of comparative fault. |
Case |
| IN - Draught Animals - THE PREVENTION OF CRUELTY TO DRAUGHT AND PACK ANIMALS RULES, 1965 | Section 38 of the prevention of cruelty to Animals Act, 1960 | The Rules, drafted under Section 38(2) of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1965, regulate the weights that cattle and horses can draw. The Rules also stipulate the conditions under which animals may not be allowed to draw vehicles or carry loads. The Rules also prohibit the use of spiked sticks and bits. | Statute | |
| ANIMAL LEGAL DEFENSE FUND, ANIMAL WELFARE INSTITUTE, COMPLAINT FOR VALERIE BUCHANAN, JANE GARRISON, AND NANCY MEGNA DECLARATORY | This action concerns a lawsuit filed by the Animal Legal Defense Fund (ALDF), et al, over the lack of action by the federal agency, the Animal & Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) to adopt a policy on what constitutes appropriate conditions for primates in federally licensed or registered facilities. Specifically, the complaint alleges that the failure of the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) of the United State Department of Agriculture to make a final decision concerning the defendants' proposed “Policy On Environment Enhancement For Nonhuman Primates.” See 64 Fed. Reg. 38,145 (July 15, 1999) (Policy). APHIS determined at least seven years ago that APHIS enforcement officials and the regulated community urgently need such a policy to insure that primates are housed in “physical environments adequate to promote the[ir] psychological well-being,” as required by the Animal Welfare Act (AWA). 7 U.S.C. § 2143. By failing to make a final decision on the proposed Policy, defendants are violating the Animal Welfare Act, 7 U.S.C. § 2143, and are unreasonably delaying and/or unlawfully withholding agency action in violation of the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. § 706(1). | Pleading | ||
| IL - Testing - 620/17.2. Cosmetic testing on animals | 410 I.L.C.S. 620/17.2 | IL ST CH 410 § 620/17.2 | This law from 2019 makes it unlawful for a manufacturer to import for profit, sell, or offer for sale in this State any cosmetic, if the cosmetic was developed or manufactured using an animal test that was conducted or contracted by the manufacturer, or any supplier of the manufacturer, on or after January 1, 2020. There is an exception when an ingredient is in wide use and cannot be replaced by another ingredient capable of performing a similar function; a specific human health problem is substantiated and the need to conduct animal tests is justified and supported by a detailed research protocol proposed as the basis for the evaluation; and there is not a nonanimal alternative method accepted for the relevant endpoint by the relevant federal or State regulatory authority. | Statute |
| Great Ape Laws by State |
|
Basic page | ||
| South Africa - Biological Diversity - Regulations | These South African regulations were made relating to listed threatened and protected species of the National Environmental Management: Biodiversity Act, 2004. The purpose of these regulations is to further regulate the permit system set out in Chapter 7 of the Biodiversity Act insofar as that system applies to restricted activities involving specimens of listed threatened or protected species; to provide for the registration of captive breeding operations, commercial exhibition facilities, game farms, nurseries, scientific institutions, sanctuaries and rehabilitation facilities and wildlife traders; to provide for the regulation of the carrying out of a specific restricted activity, namely hunting; to provide for the prohibition of specific restricted activities involving specific listed threatened or protected species; to provide for the protection of wild populations of listed threatened species; and to provide for the composition and operating procedure of the Scientific Authority. | Statute | ||
| UT - Sterilization - Animal Welfare Act. Part 2. Animal Shelter Pet Sterilization Act | U.C.A. 1953 § 11-46-201 - 208 | UT ST § 11-46-201 - 208 | Under this Utah act, a shelter may not transfer an unsterilized animal for adoption unless the shelter has a written agreement in which the recipient agrees to have the animal sterilized and gives the shelter a sterilization deposit. If a recipient fails to comply with the agreement, the animal may be seized and impounded, and the recipient forfeits the deposit. A first violation may result in a civil penalty of $250. | Statute |
| AU - Companion Animals - Domestic Animals Act 1994 (VIC) | Domestic Animals Act 1994 - No. 81 of 1994 | The purpose of the Domestic Animals Act is to promote animal welfare, responsible pet ownership and to protect the environment. The legislation provides for cat and dog identification and enables Municipal Councils to deal effectively with feral, straying and nuisance populations. | Statute | |
| Huff v. Dyer | 297 Ga.App. 761, 678 S.E.2d 206 (Ga.App.,2009) | 2009 WL 1299046 (Ga.App.), 09 FCDR 1707 |
In this Georgia case, the plaintiff was injured from being bitten by defendants' dog who was chained to the bed of their pickup truck while the defendants were inside an adjacent restaurant. The plaintiff sued defendants, claiming that they failed to warn her of their dog's dangerous propensities and that they committed negligence per se by violating the state's strict liability statute (OCGA § 51-2-7) and the Hall County Animal Control Ordinance. A jury found in favor of the defendants. The court found that the evidence was therefore more than sufficient to support the jury's conclusion that defendants' dog was “under restraint” for purposes of the ordinance. Further, there was no evidence that the owners had knowledge of the dog's vicious propensity. Affirmed. |
Case |
| KS - Rehabilitation - 32-953. Rehabilitation permit | K. S. A. 32-953 | KS ST 32-953 | This Kansas law states that a rehabilitation permit is required to perform wildlife rehabilitation services. | Statute |