Results
| Title | Citation | Alternate Citation | Agency Citation | Summary | Type |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| US - Service animals - Nondiscrimination on the Basis of Disability by Public Accommodations and in Commercial Facilities | 2008 WL 2413721 (F.R.) | CRT Docket No. 106; AG Order No. 2968-2008 |
The Department of Justice (Department) is issuing this notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) in order to: Adopt enforceable accessibility standards under the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA) that are "consistent with the minimum guidelines and requirements issued by the Architectural and Transportation Barriers Compliance Board" (Access Board); and perform periodic reviews of any rule judged to have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities, and a regulatory assessment of the costs and benefits of any significant regulatory action as required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act, as amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (SBREFA).
|
Administrative | |
| CA - Research Animals - Chapter 5. Regulation of Use of Animals in Diagnostic Procedures and Medical Research | West's Ann. Cal. Health & Safety Code § 1650 - 1677 | CA HLTH & S § 1650 - 1677 | This section regulates the use of animals in medical research. The California Department of Health Services is directed to make rules and regulations providing for satisfactory shelter, food, sanitation, record keeping, and for the humane treatment of animals by persons authorized by the board to raise, keep or to use animals medical research. The department is also authorized to inspect any premises where animals used for the purposes of this section are kept. Violations constitute a misdemeanor. | Statute | |
| MS - Dangerous Animal - Chapter 3. Crimes Against the Person. | Miss. Code Ann. § 97-3-45 | MS ST § 97-3-45 | This Mississippi law makes an owner liable for manslaughter if he or she wilfully allows a mischievous animal to go at large, or it goes at large because the owner fails to exercise ordinary care, and the animal, while at large or not confined, kills any human being who took reasonable precautions to avoid the animal. | Statute | |
| AU - Cruelty - Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act 1979 (NSW) | Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act 1979 | The Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act 1979 (POCTAA) is the primary piece of legislation that aims to protect animals from cruelty in New South Wales, Australia. POCTAA establishes certain acts or omissions as offences and also provides defences to a charge under the Act in certain circumstances. POCTAA prohibits cruelty and aggravated cruelty generally, as well as a number of other types of activities, including neglect, confinement, abandonment, failure to act in certain circumstances, some transport-related activities, inappropriate use, mutilation, poisoning, torture, fighting and baiting, certain hunting and trapping related activities, selling severely injured animals and failing to take action where an animal is injured by a vehicle. | Statute | ||
| IL - Ordinances - 5/7. Remittance of fees; Animal Control Fund; use of fund; self-insurance | 510 I.L.C.S. 5/7 | IL ST CH 510 § 5/7 | This Illinois statute provides that all registration fees collected shall be remitted the county Animal Control Fund. This fund shall be set up for the purpose of paying costs of the Animal Control Program. This includes paying claims for loss of livestock or poultry and for other ordinance enacted measures, including the purchase of human rabies anti-serum, human vaccine, the cost for administration of serum or vaccine, minor medical care; paying the cost of stray dog control, impoundment, education on animal control and rabies; or any county or municipal ordinance as established by ordinance of the County Board. In 2013, the statute was amended to provide different provisions for how the fund shall be used for cities with 3 million or more people and for cities with less than 3 million people. | Statute | |
| April in Paris v. Becerra | 494 F. Supp. 3d 756 (E.D. Cal. 2020) | Plaintiffs are a collection of businesses that distribute and sell products made from alligator and crocodile parts. They brought this suit to enjoin the provisions of a California law that would criminalize the sale and possession of alligator and crocodile parts in California. They argue that these laws would cause them to lose sales, lead to inventory liquidation, and cause job loss. The court found that the injury plaintiff were alleging was economic in nature, and that they would be likely to suffer an irreparable injury by the California law. Plaintiffs also argue that the California law is expressly preempted by the Endangered Species Act (ESA), and that trade in these species is authorized by an exemption under the regulatory "special rules" of the ESA. The court found that these exceptions applied to plaintiff's trade and possession of the animal parts, granted the injunction to enjoin California from enforcing the laws until final disposition of the case. | Case | ||
| Hammer v. American Kennel Club | 803 N.E.2d 766 (N.Y., 2003) | 1 N.Y.3d 294; 771 N.Y.S.2d 493, 2003 N.Y. Slip Op. 19691 (2003) |
Plaintiff sought both declaratory and injunctive relief against the American Kennel Club (AKC) for use of standards in dog show competitions for Brittany Spaniel dogs that require the docking of their tails. The issue in this appeal is whether Agriculture and Markets Law § 353 grants plaintiff, who wishes to enter his dog and compete without penalty in breed contests, a private right of action to preclude defendants from using a standard that encourages him to "dock" his Brittany Spaniel's tail. The Court of Appeals concluded that it would be inconsistent with the applicable legislative scheme to imply a private right of action in plaintiff's favor because the statute does not, either expressly or impliedly, incorporate a method for private citizens to obtain civil relief. In light of the comprehensive statutory enforcement scheme, recognition of a private civil right of action is incompatible with the mechanisms chosen by the Legislature. |
Case | |
| Stolte v. Hammack | 716 S.E.2d 796 (Ga. App., 2011) | 2011 WL 4116153 (Ga. App., 2011); 311 Ga.App. 710 (2011) |
After home owner’s roommate was attacked by a pit bull inside the home, the victim filed suit against owner under the vicious animal and the premises liability statutes. The Court of Appeals held that, because the roommate knew about the dog’s vicious propensity to the same extent as the owner, the owner was not liable. Plaintiff must present evidence that the owner had superior knowledge of the dog's temperament for the owner to be liable. |
Case | |
| AK - Ordinances - § 03.55.070. Power of village council to control dogs | AS § 03.55.070 | AK ST § 03.55.070 | This Alaska statute enables a village council the power to destroy loose dogs in the village and otherwise control dogs to the extent authorized first class cities. The council may impose and enforce the provisions of a dog control ordinance in the total area within 20 miles of the village. | Statute | |
| MI - Exotic Pets - Chapter 287. Animal Industry; Large Carnivore Act | M. C. L. A. 287.1101 - 1123 | MI ST 287.1101 - 1123 | This Michigan law bans acquisition and possession of large carnivores (big cats and bears), though it grandfathered animals already owned as pets at the time of the law's enactment. In order to maintain public safety and animal welfare, the state created a strict permit system for those owners who were allowed to keep their already-existing pets. The statute also outlines minimal care requirements, transportation guidelines, and procedures for when a large carnivore suspected of carrying rabies bites a human or livestock. | Statute |