Results
Displaying 131 - 140 of 6822
| Title | Citation | Alternate Citation | Agency Citation | Summary | Type |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| OR - Disaster - Chapter 401. Emergency Services | Or. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 401.975, § 401.977, § 401.978; § 404.350 | OR ST Or. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 401.975, § 401.977, § 401.978; § 404.350 | In Oregon, the Office of Emergency Management must prepare a written animal emergency operations plan that provides for the evacuation, transport and temporary sheltering of companion and service animals during a major disaster or an emergency. The office shall consider various factors, including allowing owners and their companion animals to be evacuated together, establishing evacuation shelters for animals in close proximity to human shelters, and establishing an identification system so that owners can locate their animals. | Statute | |
| MO - Trust - Creation of trust, care of living animals | V.A.M.S. 456.4-408 | MO ST 456.4-408 | This Missouri statute represents the state's pet trust law. The law provides that a trust may be created to provide for the care of an animal alive during the settlor's lifetime. The trust terminates upon the death of the animal or, if the trust was created to provide for the care of more than one animal alive during the settlor's lifetime, upon the death of the last surviving animal. | Statute | |
| Loman v. Freeman | 890 N.E.2d 446 (Ill., 2008) | 229 Ill.2d 104 (Ill., 2008) | This case concerns surgical procedures performed on a racehorse that rendered the horse unfit for future racing. The horse's owners brought this action against the veterinarians who performed the surgical procedure, alleging negligence and conversion. The circuit court dismissed and the court of appeals reversed the decision of the lower court. At the state supreme court, the court affirmed the judgment of the appellate court. The court found that defendant was permanently deprived of the use of the horse due to its lameness from the surgery, which sustained the claim of conversion. | Case | |
| Animal Legal Defense Fund v. Reynolds | 8 F.4th 781 (8th Cir. 2021) | This appeal centers around an Iowa statute called the “Agricultural Production Facility Fraud" law that prohibited accessing agricultural production facilities by false pretenses and making false statements as part of an employment application to an agricultural production facility. Animal rights organizations filed a § 1983 action against state and county officials contending the law violated the the First Amendment free speech clause. The district court ruled that both provisions are unconstitutional and entered an injunction against enforcement of the entire statute. Here, the Eighth Circuit affirmed in part and reversed in part. The court found both the Access Provision and the Employment Provision constitute direct regulations of speech. However, the court held the conclude that the Access Provision's prohibition on assuming false pretenses to obtain access to an agricultural production facility is consistent with the First Amendment. In contrast, the Employment Provision did not survive strict scrutiny because is proscribes speech that is protected by the First Amendment and was not narrowly tailored. The court affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment for the plaintiffs on Iowa Code § 717A.3A(1)(b), reversed the judgment declaring unconstitutional § 717A.3A(1)(a), vacated the injunction against enforcement of § 717A.3A(1)(a), (2), and (3), and remanded for further proceedings. | Case | ||
| Australia - Animal Cruelty - Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (Animal Trades) Regulation 1996 | Agency Citation |
This Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (Animal Trades) Regulation 1996 identifies certain businesses as animal trades for the purposes of POCTAA, and prescribes Codes of Practice relevant to the conduct of those businesses. It also creates offences relating to the conduct of businesses classed as 'animal trades'. |
Administrative | ||
| Animals and Criminal Justice |
|
Policy | |||
| Trager v. Thor | 516 N.W.2d 69 (Mich.,1994) | 445 Mich. 95 (Mich.,1994) |
In this Michigan case involving an action for damages after personal injury, the father of the dog’s owner was visiting his son's home when he agreed to supervise the dog while his son and daughter-in-law went shopping. The n eighbor’s child was subsequently bitten by the dog, which had been put by defendant into a bedroom. This court held that the defendant, as a temporary caretaker of the dog, could not be held to the strict liability standard of an owner keeper, but could be liable under theory of negligence. Thus, a genuine issue of material fact remained as to whether the father was negligent in fulfilling his duty of care in supervising the dog, which precluded summary judgment in a negligence action. |
Case | |
| AL - Cruelty - Article 10. Bestiality | Ala. Code 1975 § 13A-6-220 - 221 | AL ST § 13A-6-220 - 221 | This Alabama section enacted in 2014 prohibits people from knowingly engaging in or submitting to any sexual conduct or sexual contact with an animal. The law also prohibits the furtherance of such activity or permitting any sexual conduct or sexual contact with an animal upon premises under his or her control. Violation is a Class A misdemeanor. | Statute | |
| NM - Fur/Trapping - Article 5. Trappers and Fur Dealers | NMSA 1978, § 17-5-1 to 17-5-9 | NM ST § 17-5-1 to 17-5-9 | These New Mexico statutes regulate trappers and fur dealers. Fur-bearing animals, such as muskrat, mink, weasel, beaver, otter, nutria, masked or blackfooted ferret, ringtail cat, raccoon, pine marten, coatimundi, badgers, bobcat and foxes, may only be taken during certain seasons or with a permit and/or a license. Fur dealers must have a license to buy or sell skins. A violation of the statutes is a misdemeanor. | Statute | |
| MD - Domestic Violence - Subtitle 5. Domestic Violence. | MD Code, Family Law, § 4-501, 504.1 | MD FAMILY § 4-501, 504.1 | This Maryland law amended in 2011 allows an interim protective order to award temporary possession of any pet (defined in Section 4-501 as a domesticated animal except livestock) to the person eligible for relief or the respondent. This law also allows the court to issue temporary or final protective orders awarding temporary possession of any pet of the person eligible for relief or the respondent. | Statute |
