Results
Displaying 6621 - 6630 of 6638
| Title | Citation | Alternate Citation | Agency Citation | Summary | Type |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| CA - Fish & Game - Chapter 6.5. Control of Illegally Taken Fish and Wildlife | West's Ann. Cal. Fish & G. Code § 2580 - 2589 | CA FISH & G § 2580 - 2589 | This set of laws outlines various violations involving the possession and movement of illegally obtained animals and imposes liability for those activities. | Statute | |
| NE - Domestic Violence - 42-924. Protection order; when authorized; | Neb. Rev. St. § 42-903, 924 | NE ST § 42-903, 924 | In 2023, Nebraska amended the Protection from Domestic Abuse Act to include household pets in protection orders. "Household pet" means any animal maintained for companionship or pleasure but does not include any animal kept primarily for commercial purposes or for consumption or any livestock animal as defined in section 54-902. Any victim of domestic abuse may file a petition and affidavit for a protection order as provided in this section. The court may issue a protection order granting relief that includes giving the petitioner sole possession of any household pet owned, possessed, leased, kept, or held by the petitioner, the respondent, or any family or household member residing in the household of the petitioner or respondent. The court may also enjoin the respondent from coming into contact with, harming, or killing any household pet owned, possessed, leased, kept, or held by the petitioner, the respondent, or any family or household member of the petitioner or respondent. | Statute | |
| Colombia - Dangerous dogs - DECRETO 380 DE 2022 | DECRETO 380 DE 2022 | This decree adds Chapter 10 to Title 8 of Decree 1070, 2015 (Regulatory Decree of the Defense Administrative Sector). It regulates the civil liability of owners or keepers of "special management dogs." Owners and keepers must acquire liability insurance and dogs in this category must be microchipped. | Statute | ||
| Levine v. National Railroad Passenger Corporation | 80 F. Supp. 3d 29 (D.D.C. 2015) | 2015 WL 674073 (D.D.C., 2015) | This action arose from plaintiff’s experience of bringing her service dog on Amtrak trains. Plaintiff brought claims on her own behalf and on behalf of a putative class of other disabled passengers against Amtrak pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act, the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, and the District of Columbia Human Rights Act. Each claim related to Amtrak′s alleged practice of storing luggage in its train's “mobility aid” seating areas. Amtrak argued, amongst other things, that plaintiff lacked Article III Constitutional Standing because she had not suffered an injury in fact. The district court agreed and granted Amtrak′s motion to dismiss. The case was dismissed in its entirety. | Case | |
| PA - Exotic Pets - Chapter 137. Wildlife | 58 PA ADC § 137.1 - 35 | 58 Pa. Code § 137.1 to .35 | This set of administrative regulations prohibits the importation, possession, selling, offering for sale or release of certain species such as lynx, bobcat, coyote, wolf, bears, raccoons, nutria, skunks, all families of nonhuman primates, certain birds, game taken from the wild, and game or wildlife held in captivity. Exemptions includes zoos and circuses. A person wishing to import lawfully acquired wildlife, or parts thereof, shall first obtain an importation permit from the Commission. Another section makes it unlawful for a person to possess live wildlife taken from a wild state subject to certain exceptions. | Administrative | |
| 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 | |
| Model National Animal Welfare Act - Spanish |
This is the spanish translation of the Model National Legislation. |
Statute | |||
| WI - Importation - Wildlife, Chapter 10. Animal Diseases and Movement. | Wis. Adm. Code s ATCP 10.01 - 10.09; 10.80 - 10.85 | WI ADC s ATCP 10.01 - 10.09; 10.80 - 10.87 | In this set of Wisconsin regulations, "wild animal" does not include a domestic animal identified in s. ATCP 10.02 (livestock, poultry, and other domestic animals). The majority of the regulations here concern disease detection, inoculation, and prevention in domestic herds. However, a person who imports an animal must comply with importing requirements including obtaining a permit under ATCP 10.07. Importation of specific species (dog, cats, exotic ruminants, camelids, elephants, etc.) are covered in 10.80 - 10.86. | Administrative | |
| Sentencia C-148, 2022 | Sentencia C-148, 2022 | In this opportunity, the Colombian Constitutional Court deemed national recreational fishing regulations unconstitutional three years after banning recreational hunting. Specifically, the Court determined that provisions pertaining to this matter, contained in the Code of Natural Renewable Resources, the General Statute of Animal Protection, and the Fishing Statute, violated the government's constitutional obligation to protect the environment, the right to environmental education, and the prohibition of animal cruelty. The Court recognized constitutional limitations on the prohibition of animal cruelty that were based on religious freedom, eating habits, medical research and experimentation, and deeply rooted cultural manifestations. Consequently, the Court held that fishing for recreational purposes was a cruel practice that did not fall within any of these exceptions. | Case | ||
| Smith v. Wisconsin Mut. Ins. Co. | 880 N.W.2d 183 (Wis. Ct. App., 2016) (unpublished) | 2016 WI App 41, ¶ 1, 369 Wis. 2d 224 (2016) | This case concerns the measure of damages for injury to companion animals in Wisconsin. It arises from the incident between the plaintiff’s 11-year-old dog and the neighbor's dog. Plaintiff’s dog sustained severe injuries that resulted in veterinary bills and related expenses for the amount of $12,235. Plaintiffs argued that they were entitled to recover all veterinary and related expenses. Additionally, the plaintiffs contended that their damages were entitled to doubling under § 174.02(1)(b) as there were records that showed that the dog’s owner had knowledge of the dog's dangerous propensities. Defendants’ insurer sought declaratory ruling arguing that under Wisconsin law, plaintiffs’ maximum recovery was the lesser amount between the dog's "cost of repair" and the dog's pre-injury fair market value, as it was the measure for personal property damage. The circuit court limited damages to $2,695, which was the amount conceded by the parties to be the replacement cost of plaintiff’s dog. In addition, that amount was doubled pursuant to § 174.02(1)(b). The court of appeals affirmed the judgment of the trial court and declined to extend Wisconsin's "keepsakes" rule to pets to provide different damages for pets that only have value to the owner. The court found there were “significant differences between an unrepairable and lost forever keepsake and an injured but "repairable" pet.” The court was also not persuaded by other states' precedent about allowing or denying veterinary treatment as part of damage awards and decided to continue to treat dogs the same as other personal property. On the additional expenses allegations, the court found them to be “expenses incurred by the Smiths to facilitate "repairing" their dog” that were subject to property damage limitations. | Case |