Results
Displaying 101 - 110 of 6638
| Title | Citation | Alternate Citation | Agency Citation | Summary | Type |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| NE - Ferret - § 37-526. Ferrets; use or possession prohibited, when; violation; penalty | Neb.Rev.St. § 37-526 | NE ST § 37-526 | This Nebraska statute states that it shall be unlawful to hunt rabbits, squirrels, or any fur-bearing animal with or by the aid of a ferret. It is also unlawful to have a ferret in one's possession or control in a field or forest or in any vehicle going to or from hunting territory. Any person violating this section shall be guilty of a Class III misdemeanor and shall be fined at least fifty dollars. | Statute | |
| AR - Facility Dog - § 16-43-1002. Certified facility dogs for child witnesses | Ark. Code Ann. § 16-43-1002 | A.C.A. § 16-43-1002 | This statute deals with the use of certified facility dogs for child witnesses and vulnerable witnesses (a person testifying in a criminal hearing or trial who has an intellectual and developmental disability or has a significant impairment in cognitive functioning acquired as a direct consequence of a brain injury or resulting from a progressively deteriorating neurological condition, including without limitation Alzheimer's disease or dementia). In order to qualify as a certified facility dog, a dog must graduate from an assistance dog organization after receiving at least 2 years of training and passing the same public service access test as a service dog. | Statute | |
| Justice for Animals, Inc. v. Lenoir County SPCA, Inc. | 168 N.C. App. 298, 607 S.E.2d 317 aff'd on other grounds, 360 N.C. 48, 619 S.E.2d 494 (2005) | 2005 WL 221226 (N.C. 2005) |
An animal control facility's practice of euthanizing feral cats without holding them for 72 hours was challenged by a non-profit organization. The animal control facility's method for determining if a cat is feral consisted only of poking the animal and gaging its reaction. The trial court dismissed the claim, but the Court of Appeals reversed the decision. |
Case | |
| IN - Rehabilitation, wildlife - 312 IAC 9-10-9 Wild animal rehabilitation permit | 312 IAC 9-10-9 | 312 IN ADC 9-10-9, 9.5 | This Indiana regulation sets for the requirements to obtain a permit to possess wild animals for rehabilitation. | Administrative | |
| IL - Service Animal - Chapter 740. Civil Liabilities. | 740 I.L.C.S. 13/1 - 10 | IL ST CH 740 § 13/1 - 10 | Under this Illinois statute, a physically impaired person may bring an action for both economic and noneconomic damages against a person who steals, injures, or attacks his or her assistance animal with hazardous chemicals (provided he or she reasonably knew the guide dog was present and the chemical was hazardous). The economic damages recoverable include veterinary medical expenses, replacement costs, and temporary replacement assistance (provided by person or animal). No cause of action lies where the physically impaired person was committing a civil or criminal trespass at the time of the attack or theft. | Statute | |
| MONICA NEWMAN, individually and on behalf of all similarly situated; MATTHEW KEITH DOUGLAS, individually and on behalf of all similarly situated; and RUBY JUDINE MALMAN, individually and on behalf of all similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. CITY OF PAYETTE, | 2015 WL 6159471 (D. Idaho, 2015) | District Court ruled City of Payette's pit bull ordinance's procedural aspects were unconstitutional, finding that the lack of hearing provisions for a dog that was impounded due to an attack or bite violated procedural due process. The court also found that forcing the dog owner to bear the burden of proving his or her dog's innocence violated due process. The court, however, found no constitutional infirmity with the notice procedure employed by Payette's pit bull ordinance, provided Payette adhered to Idaho Code § 25-2804. The court ordered Plaintiff Douglas’ Motion for Partial Summary Judgment to be granted in part and denied in part; the claims asserted against the city of Payette by Plaintiffs Monica Newman and Ruby Judine Malman to be dismissed without prejudice; and all claims asserted by Plaintiffs against the city of Fruitland to be dismissed without prejudice. | Case | ||
| CO - Domestic Violence - Animals and Domestic Violence; Definition. | C. R. S. A. § 18-6-800.3; C.R.S.A. § 13-14-101, 103 | CO ST § 18-6-800.3; CO ST § 13-14-101, 103 | This statute includes within the definition of "domestic violence" any other crime against a person, or against property, including an animal, or any municipal ordinance violation against a person, or against property, including an animal, when used as a method of coercion, control, punishment, intimidation, or revenge directed against a person with whom the actor is or has been involved in an intimate relationship. Under Article 14 on Civil Protection Orders, the phrase "protection order” means any order that prohibits the restrained person from contacting, harassing, injuring, intimidating, molesting, threatening, touching, stalking, or sexually assaulting or abusing any protected person or from entering or remaining on premises, or from coming within a specified distance of a protected person or premises, or from taking, transferring, concealing, harming, disposing of or threatening harm to an animal owned, possessed, leased, kept, or held by a protected person, or any other provision to protect the protected person from imminent danger to life or health. | Statute | |
| FL - Immunity, Care For Injured Animals - Chapter 768. Negligence | West's F. S. A. § 768.13 | FL ST § 768.13 | This section comprises Florida's Good Samaritan Act. Under the Act, any person, including those licensed to practice veterinary medicine, who gratuitously (without payment) and in good faith renders emergency care or treatment to an injured animal at the scene of an emergency on or adjacent to a roadway shall not be held liable for any civil damages as a result of such care or treatment where the person acts as an ordinary reasonably prudent person would have acted under the same or similar circumstances. | Statute | |
| Glover v. Weber | Glover v. Weber,183 Wash.App. 1044 (Wash. Ct. App. Oct. 6, 2014) | 2014 WL 4988156 (Wash. Ct. App. Oct. 6, 2014) |
In this case, Sylvia Weber filed suit against Monika Glover for injuries sustained when Weber’s daughter fell off a horse owned by a third party and boarded on Glover’s land. The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of Weber. Glover appealed the trial court’s decision, arguing that she was immune from liability under the Equine Activities statute. The court of appeals reviewed the issue and reversed the trial courts decision and granted summary judgment in favor of Glover. The main issue of the case whether or not Glover fell under the definition of “equine activity sponsor” provided in the act. Weber argued that Glover was not an “equine activity sponsor” because she was not participating in a public or group-based equine activity or a professional equine activity. The court of appeals disagreed with Weber’s argument and determined that noting in the plain language of the statute requires the equine activity to be public or group-based or professional to be covered under the statute. For this reason, the court of appeals found that Glover was considered a “equine activity sponsor” under the act and was therefore immune from liability. |
Case | |
| Finland - Animal Welfare Decree | (396/1996, amendments up to 401/2006 included) | The Finnish Animal Welfare Decree intreprets certain sections of the Finnish Animal Welfare Act. It also contains provisions on animal premises, outdoor raising of animals for food production, care and treatment of animals, tying animals, breeding, food production, and killing animals. | Statute |