Results
| Title | Citation | Alternate Citation | Agency Citation | Summary | Type | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| CO - Impound - Article 4. Disease Control | C. R. S. A. § 25-4-610 | CO ST § 25-4-610 | This Colorado statute provides that it is unlawful for any owner of any dog, cat, other pet animal, or other mammal which has not been inoculated as required by the order of the county board of health or board of health of a health department to allow it to run at large. The health department or health officer may capture and impound any such dog, cat, other pet animal. | Statute | ||||||||
| FL - Importation - Chapter 5C-3. Importation of Animals | Fla. Admin. Code r. 5C-3.001 - 3.015 | Rule 5C-3.001 to 3.015, F.A.C. | This set of regulations constitutes the Department of Agriculture & Consumer Services rules governing the importation of animals. | Administrative | ||||||||
| State ex rel. Miller v. DeCoster | 596 N.W.2d 898 (Iowa,1999) |
State of Iowa sued the owner of a hog confinement operation for violations of manure disposal and animal control regulations. |
Case | |||||||||
| Derecho Animal Volume 5 Núm 4 |
|
Policy | ||||||||||
| Petco Animal Supplies, Inc. v. Schuster | 144 S.W.3d 554 (Tex.App.-Austin,2004) |
In this Texas case, a dog owner brought an action against a Petco groomer for damages when her dog was killed after escaping from the pet groomer and running into traffic. The trial court entered a default judgment in favor of the owner and awarded damages. The Court of Appeals, held that the dog owner was not entitled to damages for mental anguish, absent pet store's ill-will, animus or desire to harm her personally. Moreover, the owner was not entitled to intrinsic value damages, lost wages, or counseling expenses. |
Case | |||||||||
| State Map of Interference with Assistance Animal Laws | As of 2022, 47 states have laws that protect assistance animals from criminal interference, theft, and assault. Only Alaska, Iowa, and Montana do not. | State map | ||||||||||
| GA - Wildlife rehabilitation - Chapter 2. Licenses, Permits, and Stamps Generally | Ga. Code Ann., § 27-2-22 | GA ST § 27-2-22 | This Georgia law makes it unlawful for any person to keep sick or injured wildlife without first obtain a wildlife rehabilitation permit from the state department. | Statute | ||||||||
| Kangas v. Perry | 620 N.W.2d 429 (Wis. 2000) |
Plaintiff, a passenger of a horse-drawn sled sued the owner of the property on which the accident occurred, as well as the owner of the horses and the sled for the injuries she suffered when thrown from the sled. The Court of Appeals found that the equine immunity statute provided protection for the owner of the horse against tort liability. The plain language of the statute provides that immunity from civil liability is available to all persons , “ including an equine activity sponsor or equine professional…”; thus, protection is not limited only to those who are sponsors or professionals, rather they are examples of types of people to whom the statute applies. |
Case | |||||||||
| KY - Domestic Violence - 403.740 Domestic violence order; restrictions | KRS § 403.720, 403.740 | KY ST § 403.720, 403.740 | In 2022, Kentucky amended its laws related to domestic violence protection orders to include domestic animals. "Domestic animal" is defined as a dog, cat, or other animal that is domesticated and kept as a household pet, but does not include animals normally raised for agricultural or commercial purposes. The definition of "domestic violence" was expanded to include "[a]ny conduct prohibited by KRS 525.125, 525.130, 525.135, or 525.137, or the infliction of fear of such imminent conduct, taken against a domestic animal when used as a method of coercion, control, punishment, intimidation, or revenge directed against a family member or member of an unmarried couple who has a close bond of affection to the domestic animal." Following a hearing, a court may issue a domestic violence order that awards possession of any shared domestic animal to the petitioner. | Statute | ||||||||
| CITIZENS' RAPID-TRANSIT CO. v. DEW | 45 S.W. 790 (Tenn. 1898) | 40 L.R.A. 518, 100 Tenn. 317, 16 Pickle 317, 66 Am.St.Rep. 754 (1898) |
In 1898, this court affirmed a verdict for $200 after defendant train killed plaintiff’s dog. The Court reasoned that, "Large amounts of money are now invested in dogs, and they are extensively the subjects of trade and traffic. They are the negro's associates, and often his only property, the poor man's friend, and the rich man's companion, and the protection of women and children, hearthstones and hen roosts. In the earlier law books it was said that "dog law" was as hard to define as was "dog Latin." But that day has passed, and dogs have now a distinct and well established status in the eyes of the law." |
Case |