Results
| Title | Citation | Alternate Citation | Agency Citation | Summary | Type |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Animal Law Volume 15 Part 1 Index |
|
Policy | |||
| Scott v. Donkel | 671 So.2d 741 (Ala.Civ.App.,1995) |
In this Alabama case, there was an injury to a non-tenant child by a dog bite, and the defendant was a landlord. The attack occurred off the rented premises in the public street. The action was based upon negligence, that is, a failure to protect against a dangerous condition. The key to such a claim is the knowledge of the landlord. Plaintiff presented no evidence of the landlord being aware of the dog let alone that he knew of its vicious propensity. The court did not find a duty to inspect the premises and discover this information. The court did not reach the point that the attack occurred off the premises. The granting of the motion for summary judgment for the landlord was upheld. |
Case | ||
| Sentencia C-439, 2011 | Sentencia C-439, 2011 | This is an unconstitutionality claim against Article 87 of Ley 769, 2002 (Trafic Code), relating the transportation of animals on vehicles of public transportation. Article 87 of Ley 769, established that only guide dogs could travel in this type of transportation when accompanying a blind person. The Plaintiff argued that this Article, which prohibited the transportation of animals on vehicles like buses and taxis, violated the right to equality, rights to personal and family privacy, right to free development of personality, freedom of locomotion, and private property. The court concluded that there was a violation to the right to free development of personality, freedom to locomotion, and to private property of the owners of domestic animals. The court added domestic animals as an exception to article 87, of Ley 769, meaning that this prohibition still remains for specimens of the wild fauna. Domestic animals now can travel on vehicles of public transportation, so long they are transported in conditions of health, safety, comfort and tranquility according to the applicable rules. The court also considered that a pertinent regulation was necessary to establish the requirements to transport animals on public vehicles. | Case | ||
| VT - Lost Property - Chapter 11. Lost Property | 27 V.S.A. § 1101 - 1110 | VT ST T. 27 § 1101 - 1110 | These statutes comprise Vermont's lost property provisions. | Statute | |
| EG - Animal Development - Chapter 1 on Animal Development and Protection | Subchapter II, arts. 108, 109, 117, 118, 119 |
This chapter of laws from Egypt contains five articles that concern the treatment of animals. Among the provisions is an article that allows the Minister of Agriculture to regulate the import and export of live animals and birds. Article 119 states: "It is forbidden to exercise cruelty to animals. The Minister of Agriculture shall, by decree, specify the cases to which this ban shall apply." |
Statute | ||
| RI - Pawtucket - Breed - § 116-37. Registration of Rottweilers required; § 116-37.1 Pit bulls prohibited | PAWTUCKET, R.I., CODIFIED ORDINANCES § 116-37; § 116-37.1 (2003) |
In Pawtucket, Rhode Island, it is unlawful to own, possess, keep, exercise control over, maintain, harbor, transport, or sell any pit bull dog. Exceptions are made for animal shelters, dog shows, and dogs that have been previously registered and licensed. In the last case, the owner must be at least 21 years of age, keep liability insurance of at least $100,000, have the dog sterilized, keep the dog properly confined, and post a "PIT BULL DOG" sign. A violation may result in a fine ($500 - $1,000) and/or imprisonment up to 30 days. The dog may also be impounded and/or destroyed. |
Local Ordinance | ||
| Defenders of Wildlife v. Kempthorne | 2006 WL 2844232 | 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 71137 |
Ten non-profit groups sued the Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) alleging that the FWS had not adequately explained why the Northeast, Great Lakes, and Southern Rockies were not a significant area of lynx habitat under the Endangered Species Act, as the FWS had previously been ordered by the court to do. Additionally, the non-profit groups claimed that the FWS had violated Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act by passing regulations which made it easier for federal agencies to thin trees in lynx habitat under the Healthy Forest Initiative. The Court ordered the FWS to explain why the Northeast, Great Lakes, and Southern Rockies were not a significant area of lynx habitat, but found that the challenged regulations making it easier to thin trees in lynx habitat were permissible. |
Case | |
| Matter of Ware | --- P.3d ----, 2018 WL 3120370 (Wash. Ct. App. June 26, 2018) | No. 50285-2-II | After the Lewis County Prosecuting Attorney's Office's decided not to issue charges in an animal abuse case, two private citizens sought to independently initiate criminal charges. One person filed a petition for a citizen's complaint in district court and, after that was denied, another person filed a petition to summon a grand jury. On appeal, those appellants argue that the lower court erred in not granting their petitions. The animal cruelty claim stems from an incident in 2016, where a woman filed a report with police stating that a neighbor had killed her mother's cat by throwing a rock at the cat and stabbing it with a knife. Witnesses gave similar account of the abuse of the cat by the neighbor. The responding police officer then determined that there was probable cause to arrest the suspect for first degree animal cruelty. The officer found the cat's body and photographed the injuries, although the officer could not determine whether the cat had been stabbed. Subsequently, the prosecuting attorney's office declined to file charges because the actions related to the animal's death were unclear. Additionally, the cat's body was not collected at the scene to sustain a charge. | Case | |
| AK - Exotic Pets - 5 AAC 92.030. Possession of wolf and wild cat hybrids prohibited. | 5 AK ADC 92.030 | 5 AAC 92.030 | This Alaska regulation makes it unlawful to possess, sell, purchase, or transfer a wolf or wild cat hybrid without a permit. It is an affirmative defense to prosecution that the person possessed the animal as a pet before July 23, 2002 in the case of a wolf-dog hybrid and followed other listed actions. A wild cat hybrid is defined as the mating of a domestic cat with a wild cat or hybrid that is of four generations or less wild cat. It is an affirmative defense to illegal possession of a wild cat hybrid when the owner shows proof of the pedigree showing the previous four generations or the animal is at least four generations removed from a wild ancestor. | Administrative | |
| TN - Exotic Pet - Part 4. Exotic Animals. | T. C. A. §§ 70-4-401 - 418 | TN ST §§ 70-4-401 - 418 | This Tennessee chapter relates to the private possession of wildlife. It is unlawful for any person to possess, transport, import, export, buy, sell, barter, propagate or transfer any wildlife, whether indigenous to this state or not, except as provided by this part and rules and regulations promulgated by the Tennessee wildlife resources commission pursuant to this part. Additionally, no person shall possess Class I (all species inherently dangerous to humans such as wolves, bears, lions and poisonous snakes) or Class II (native species that are not listed in other classes) wildlife without having documentary evidence showing the name and address of the supplier of such wildlife and date of acquisition. In order to obtain a permit to possess Class I wildlife, a person must be 21, have at least 2 years of experience handling such animals (or take an approved written exam), have a full-time resident caretaker, and must have a plan for the quick and safe recapture of the wildlife, among other provisions. The annual permits and fees for personal possession of Class I wildlife are $150/animal or $1,000/facility. | Statute |