Results
| Title | Citation | Alternate Citation | Agency Citation | Summary | Type |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| AU - Exhibited Animals Protection Act 1986 (NSW) | Exhibited Animals Protection Act 1986 |
This Act deals with the exhibition of animals at marine or zoological parks, circuses and other places. It regulates the exhibition of all vertebrate animals in zoos, circuses or mobile displays regardless of whether they are native, exotic or domestic.
A person must have an approval to keep and exhibit an animal, and this is subject to qualifications, experience or any other term or condition that may be considered necessary |
Statute | ||
| Moreno v. Hughes | 157 F.Supp.3d 687 (E.D. Mich. Jan. 19, 2016) | 2016 WL 212932 | This § 1983 action arises from the shooting of Plaintiffs' dog by Defendant Ronald Hughes, a Michigan Department of Corrections Absconder Recovery Unit Investigator. Defendant shot Plaintiffs' dog after entering her house by mistake to execute a fugitive warrant. This proceeding concerns a Motion in Limine filed by defendant seeking an order that plaintiffs are not entitled to noneconomic losses for the pain and suffering they sustained as a result of Defendant shooting their dog. Defendant contends that damage to personal property (including dogs) is limited to market value only. In rejecting Defendant's argument, this court found that it is "beyond dispute" that compensatory damages under § 1983 may include noneconomic injuries. A Plaintiff's interests in § 1983 actions contain different policy considerations than in traditional negligence claims. In fact, the court stated that, "[p]rohibiting recovery for emotional damages stemming from the loss of, or harm to, an animal caused by a constitutional violation would conflict with the compensatory and deterrence aims of § 1983." Additionally, applying Michigan law on the issue of emotional damages for injury to an animal would create inconsistency in civil rights actions since other states allow such damages. The court found that the determination of both compensatory and punitive damages must be left to the fact finder for each case, including this one. Defendant's Motion in Limine was denied. | Case | |
| IL - Naperville - Title 6: Zoning Regulations (Chapter 2: General Zoning Provisions) | Naperville, Illinois, Code of Ordinances § 6-2-5 |
This Naperville, Illinois ordinance provides the standards to determine whether a business is a veterinary office or a pet care establishment. For a veterinary office, pets are only allowed outside between the hours of 7 AM to 10PM if they are on a leash and handled by a single employee; excrement must be picked up daily and noise levels generated by the animals cannot exceed the city’s noise performance standards. For a pet care establishment, pets are allowed to be outside without a lease or direct employee supervision, but the outside area must be fenced and cleared of excrement daily; pet care establishments are also permitted to provide emergency medical treatment or nonprofessional care associated with an existing medical problem. The zoning provisions associated with either establishment are also included. |
Local Ordinance | ||
| AL - Veterinarian Issues - Professional Rules of Conduct | AL ADC 930-X-1-.10 | Ala. Admin. Code r. 930-X-1-.10 | The following regulations represent the rules for professional conduct expected from Alabama veterinarians, including grounds for disciplinary action. | Administrative | |
| CO - Eggs - Article 21. Pt. 2. Confinement of Egg Laying Hens | C.R.S.A. § 35-21-201 - 209 | This section of Colorado law regulates the confinement of egg-laying hens in the state. Under these laws, egg-laying hens must be confined in conditions that allow them at least one square foot of usable floor space. Certain exceptions apply, such as for slaughter or veterinary purposes. Violators of these laws may be subjected to a civil penalty of no more than one thousand dollars. | Statute | ||
| ND - Dogs - Consolidated Dog Laws | NDCC 11-11-14; 20.1-04-12 - 12.2; 20.1-05-02.1; 23-36-01 - 09; 36-21-10 - 11; 40-05-01 -2; 40-05-19; 42-03-01 - 04; 43-29-16.1; 12.1-17-09 | ND ST 11-11-14; 20.1-04-12 - 12.2; 20.1-05-02.1; 23-36-01 - 09; 36-21-10 - 11; 40-05-01 -2; 40-05-19; 42-03-01 - 04; 43-29-16.1; 12.1-17-09 | These statutes comprise North Dakota's dog laws. Among the provisions include municipal powers to regulate dogs, rabies, control laws, provisions that define dogs as a public nuisance, and laws concerning dogs that harass big game or livestock. | Statute | |
| KS - Humane Slaughter - CHAPTER 47.LIVESTOCK AND DOMESTIC ANIMALS. | K. S. A. § 47-1401 to 1405 | KS ST § 47-1401 to 1405 | This Kansas section comprises the state's humane slaughter act. The act first begins with a statement of policy requiring the humane slaughter of all livestock. A humane method is defined as a method whereby the animal is rendered insensible to pain by mechanical, electrical, chemical, or other means that is rapid and effective, before being shackled, hoisted, thrown, cast, or cut.& The law also allows slaughter by a method in accordance with ritual requirements of the Jewish faith or any other religious faith whereby the animal suffers loss of consciousness by anemia of the brain. Any person who violates any provision of this act is guilty of a misdemeanor. | Statute | |
| CITY OF TOLEDO, Appellant, v. Paul TELLINGS, Appellee. |
This is the City of Toldeo's Appellant Brief filed in the Supreme Court case of Toledo v. Tellings (871 N.E.2d 1152 (2007)). The Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals decision, finding that the state and the city have a legitimate interest in protecting citizens against unsafe conditions caused by pit bulls. |
Pleading | |||
| NC - Ecoterrorism - § 99A-1. Recovery of Damages for Exceeding the Scope of Authorized Access to Property | N.C.G.S.A. § 99A-1, 2 | NC ST § 99A-1, 2 | This law is known as North Carolina’s Property Protection Act and is what many consider to be a new variation of ag-gag law. § 99A-2 imposes a civil punishment for “exceeding the scope of authorized access to property.” A person exceeds access to authority by intentionally gaining access to the non-public areas of another’s premises and removing (and subsequently distributing) documents, recording images or sounds, placing a camera on the premises, conspiring in organized retail theft, or interfering with property. The punishment for violation of the Property Protection Act can result in equitable relief, compensatory damages, costs and fees, and exemplary damages of $5,000 per day that a defendant has acted in violation. The law is effective January 1, 2016. | Statute | |
| Rogers v. Teignbridge District Council |
A planned event called "The Creepy Crawly Show" was to have been held at a racecourse and to have involved the display and sale of small exotic animals by a number of different breeders, dealers and enthusiasts. The event's organizer applied to the local council for a pet shop licence under the Pet Animals Act 1951. The application was refused on the ground that the event was prohibited by section 2 of the Act which states that a person is guilty of an offence if he "carries on a business of selling animals as pets in any part of a street or public place, [or] at a stall or barrow in a market". The organizer's appeal to the local magistrates court was dismissed. Held: the holding of the event would have involved the carrying on a business of selling pets in a "public place". It would also have involved the selling of animals in a market. The event was therefore prohibited by section 2 and that it would have been unlawful for the local authority to have licensed it. |
Case |