Results
| Title | Citation | Alternate Citation | Summary | Type |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| CA - Facility - § 868.4. Authorization for therapy or facility dogs to accompany certain witnesses in criminal | West's Ann.Cal.Penal Code § 868.4 | This law, effective in 2018, allows either party in a criminal or juvenile hearing to ask the court for approval to bring a therapy or facility dog for a child witness in a court proceeding involving any serious felony or any other victim who is entitled to a support person. Before a therapy or facility dog may be used, the party seeking its use must file a motion with the court that includes: (1) the training or credentials of the therapy or facility dog; (2) the training of the therapy or facility dog handler; and (3) facts justifying that the presence of the therapy or facility dog may reduce anxiety or otherwise be helpful to the witness while testifying. The court may grant the motion unless it finds the use of the therapy or facility dog would cause undue prejudice or be unduly disruptive to the court. Appropriate measures must be taken to assure that the presence of the therapy or facility dog as unobtrusive and nondisruptive as possible. | Statute | |
| Palila v. Hawaii Dept. of Land and Natural Resources | Not Reported in F.Supp.2d, 2013 WL 1442485 (D.Hawai'i) |
Fearing potential prosecution under a county ordinance and a state statute for carrying out a Stipulated Order that protects an endangered species (the Palila), defendants, joined substantially by the plaintiffs, sought a motion for declaratory and injunctive relief. The district court granted the defendants’ motion because federal law, the Stipulated Order, preempted both state and county law. The court therefore stated that so long as defendants, or their duly-appointed agents, were acting to enforce the specific terms of the Stipulated Order, they may conduct an aerial sighting over the Palila's critical habitat and shoot any ungulates sighted in that area without fear of violating (1) Hawaii County Code §§ 14–111, –112, & 1–10(a); or (2) HRS § 263–10. |
Case | |
| England - Dogs - The Docking of Working Dogs' Tails (England) Regulations 2007 | 2007 No. 1120 |
These Regulations exempt hunt, spaniel and terrier breeds from the tail docking prohibition under the Animal Welfare Act 2006, provided that certain conditions are met. Tail docking must be carried out by a veterinary surgeon, and not past 5 days old. |
Statute | |
| RI - Ordinances - § 4-13-1.1. Towns of Portsmouth, West Warwick, and Middletown and city of Woonsocket--Vicious dog ordinance | Gen. Laws, 1956, § 4-13-1.1 | RI ST § 4-13-1.1 | This Rhode Island statute provides that the town councils of the towns of Portsmouth, West Warwick and Middletown may, by ordinance, provide that the owner or keeper of any dog that assaults any person shall be fined an amount not less than one hundred dollars ($100) nor more than two hundred dollars. The investigation must prove that the dog was off the owner's property or that the assault was the result of owner negligence. It further provides that, in the city of Woonsocket, an owner shall not be declared negligent if an injury is sustained by a person who was committing a trespass or other tort upon the owner's premises or was teasing, tormenting, provoking, abusing or assaulting the dog or was committing or attempting to commit a crime. | Statute |
| MT - Exotic wildlife - Part 7. Importation, Introduction, and Transplantation of Wildlife | MCA 87-5-701 to 87-5-725 | MT ST 87-5-701 to 87-5-725 | These Montana statutes control the importation, introduction, and transplantation of exotic wildlife into the state. The importation of any wildlife is prohibited unless the species poses no threat of harm to native wildlife and plants or to agricultural production and that the introduction has significant public benefits. Violations may result in a fine or imprisonment. | Statute |
| AU - Wildlife - Wildlife Act 1975 (VIC) | Wildlife Act 1975 |
The purposes of this Act are to establish procedures in order to promote: the protection and conservation of wildlife; the prevention of taxa of wildlife from becoming extinct; the sustainable use of and access to wildlife; and to prohibit and regulate the conduct of persons engaged in activities concerning or related to wildlife |
Statute | |
| In re: PATRICK D. HOCTOR | 54 Agric. Dec. 114 (1995) | 1995 WL 321500 (U.S.D.A.) |
Sanction in each case is to be determined by examining nature of violations in relation to remedial purposes of regulatory statute involved, along with all relevant circumstances, giving appropriate weight to recommendations of administrative officials having responsibility for achieving congressional purpose. |
Case |
| Pet Planning Issues |
Divorce and Custody Issues (2020) |
Policy | ||
| U.S. v. Friday | 525 F.3d 938 (10th Cir., 2008) | 2008 WL 1971504 (C.A.10 (Wyo.)) |
The Defendant, a member of the Northern Arapaho Tribe of Wyoming, was charged with violating the Eagle Act after he illegally shot a bald eagle for an important religious ritual. The Defendant claimed that prosecution was prevented by the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA). Friday claimed that the government failed to protect eagles killed when they strike power lines. The Court of Appeals held that the permitting process did not facially violate the RFRA and any difference in government's treatment of Native Americans taking eagles for religious purposes and power companies whose power lines killed eagles did not indicate that government failed to protect eagles in least restrictive manner. |
Case |
| In re Marriage of Berger and Ognibene-Berger | (Decisions Without Published Opinions) 834 N.W.2d 82 (Table) (2013) | (unpublished) 2013 WL 1749799 | Joe Berger appeals from the provisions of the decree of divorce from Cira Berger, including the court’s grant of Max, the family golden retriever, to Cira. He argues that it would be more equitable to grant him ownership of Max because Cira already owns another dog, Sophie, and the parties’ son, who lives with Joe, is very attached to Max. The district court made their decision based on which party would be more available to care for the dog. This court affirms that decision, citing evidence that Max is licensed to Cira, only Cira’s name is in the dog’s ‘GEO tracker’ device, and Cira got Max medical attention even when Max was in Joe’s care. The court specified that they need not determine a pet's best interests when deciding custody. | Case |