Results

Displaying 1 - 10 of 6006
Title Citation Alternate Citation Agency Citation Summary Type
Animal Law and Welfare - International Perspectives

Policy
KY - Property - Chapter 258. Animal Control and Protection. KRS § 258.245 KY ST § 258.245

This Kentucky statute provides that all licensed dogs are personal property and can thus be subject to larceny.  It further states that it is unlawful (except as otherwise provided by law) for anyone, including a peace officer, to kill or attempt to kill a licensed dog.

Statute
DC - Trust for care of animal - Chapter 13. Uniform Trust Code. DC CODE § 19-1304.08 DC ST § 19-1304.08

This statute represents the District of Columbia'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
Ruiz v. Franklin County Animal Control 732 S.E.2d 393 (Table), 2012 WL 4510934 (N.C.App.) (unpublished)

This North Carolina case is an appeal from a denial of summary judgment in favor of Franklin County Animal Control. Defendants argue that the trial court erred by declining to enter summary judgment in their favor on the basis of governmental immunity. The appellate court agreed, reversed the trial court's decision, and remanded for an entry of summary judgment for defendants. The court found that there is no dispute in the record that Franklin County Animal Control and Stallings, in his official capacity as an Animal Control Officer, were performing a governmental function in impounding and euthanizing plaintiff's dog. Further, plaintiff failed to allege in her complaint that defendants waived governmental immunity, subjecting her action to dismissal.

Case
ARFF, Inc. v. Siegel 867 So.2d 451 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2004) 29 Fla. L. Weekly D355 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2004)

Resort developer and president of an animal performance company received an injunction against an animal rights group limiting their ability to both picket the resort and distribute pamphlets claiming that the big cats were abused.  Appellate court reversed, finding that the picketing regulations burdened more speech than necessary and that the restriction on distributing pamphlets was a prior restraint not justified by a compelling state interest.

Case
OK - Disaster Planning - Emergency Operations Plan ESF 11 Emergency Operations Plan (EOP) The purpose of this Emergency Support Function (ESF) #11 Annex is to coordinate State agencies, OKVOAD, Federal and other response entities in efforts to control and eradicate, as appropriate, any outbreak of a highly contagious or economically devastating animal/zoonotic (i.e. transmitted between animals and people) disease, or any outbreak of an economically devastating plant pest or disease; ensure the safety and security of the commercial food supply; protect natural resources; and provide for the safety and well-being of household pets during an emergency response or evacuation situation. [See FEMA Disaster Assistance Policy DAP9523.19 Title: “Eligible Costs Related to Pet Evacuation and Sheltering” for definition of “Household Pet”.] Administrative
HI - Trusts for domestic or pet animals. - CHAPTER 560. UNIFORM PROBATE CODE H R S § 560:7-501 HI ST § 560:7-501

This statute represents Hawaii's pet trust law.  The law provides that a pet trust is a valid purpose for a trust, and that such instruments are to be liberally construed to carry out the intent of the pet owner.  Extrinsic evidence is admissible to prove the transferor's intent.  Other aspects include an order for disbursement of remaining assets and a section that excludes these trusts from Hawaii's rule against perpetuities law.

Statute
CA - Poisoning - § 596. Poisoning animals; exceptions; posting warning signs West's Ann. Cal. Penal Code § 596 CA PENAL § 596

This statute makes it a misdemeanor to poison an animal, but gives an exception to a property owner trying to control or destroy predatory animals or livestock-killing dogs on his/her property, if the owner displays specified warning signs.

Statute
Lieberman v. Powers 873 N.E.2d 803 (Mass.App.Ct., 2007) 70 Mass.App.Ct. 238 (2007), 2007 WL 2768668 (Mass.App.Ct.)

In this Massachusetts case, Noah Lieberman sustained injuries when he was scratched and bitten by a cat while visiting a “cat lounge” at the Sheldon branch animal shelter, which was operated by the Animal Rescue League of Boston (ARL). Plaintiff alleged that his injuries resulted from the defendants' negligent design and maintenance of the cat lounge. The Appeals Court of Massachusetts, Suffolk reversed the lower court's grant of summary judgment for defendants. Specifically, the court found that the plaintiff has provided sufficient evidence, in the form of expert opinion, that an ordinarily prudent person in the circumstances of this case-which include the defendants' knowledge regarding the behavior (and potential for aggression) of cats-would have taken additional steps to ensure the safety of visitors to the cat lounge. At the very least, the defendants should have foreseen that the small size of the room, as well as the set-up (one food bowl, one litter box, two perches) and unsupervised operation of the cat lounge was such that it was more likely than not to increase stress in cats, which in turn made it more likely than not that the cats would behave aggressively.

Case
In re: SAMUEL ZIMMERMAN 56 Agric. Dec. 1419 (1997) 1997 WL 730380 (U.S.D.A.) Proof of respondent's willful violations of Animal Welfare Act and regulations and standards is not necessary for revocation or suspension of respondent's license where respondent received notice in writing of facts or conduct that might warrant suspension or revocation of his license, and respondent had opportunity to achieve compliance with requirements of Act and regulations and standards. Case

Pages