Results
Displaying 41 - 50 of 6637
| Title | Citation | Alternate Citation | Summary | Type |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| WY - Equine Activity Liability - Chapter 1. General Provisions as to Civil Actions | W.S.1977 § 1-1-122 to 123 | WY ST § 1-1-122 to 123 | The Wyoming equine liability provisions immunize equine professionals by declaring that those who engage in equine activities or any recreational activities assume the inherent risks in the sport or recreational opportunity. However, actions based upon negligence of the provider wherein the damage, injury or death is not the result of an inherent risk of the sport or recreational opportunity shall be preserved pursuant to W.S. 1-1-109. | Statute |
| SC - Veterinary - Chapter 69. Veterinarians. | Code 1976 § 40-69-5 to 305 | SC ST § 40-69-5 to 305 | These are the state's veterinary practice laws amended in 2006. Among the provisions include licensing requirements, laws concerning the state veterinary board, veterinary records laws, and the laws governing disciplinary actions for impaired or incompetent practitioners. | Statute |
| Lockett v. Hill |
Defendant's pit bulls killed plaintiff's cat while she watched. This is an appellate brief about non-economic damages. |
Pleading | ||
| Cetacean Cmty. v. President of the United States | 249 F. Supp. 2d 1206 (D.C. Hawaii, 2003) | Plaintiff, a community of whales, dolphins, and porpoises, sued Defendants, the President of the United States and the United States Secretary of Defense, alleging violations of the (NEPA), the (APA), the (ESA), and the (MMPA). The Plaintffs were concerned with the United States Navy's development and use of a low frequency active sonar (LFAS) system. The community alleged a failure to comply with statutory requirements with respect to LFAS use during threat and warfare conditions. | Case | |
| CA - Housing - Pet Friendly Housing Act of 2017 | West's Ann. Cal. Health & Safety Code § 50466 | CA HLTH & S § 50466 | The California Department of Housing and Community Development requires each housing development to authorize a resident of the housing development to own or maintain one or more common household pets within a resident's dwelling unit. | Statute |
| People v. Gordon | 85 N.Y.S.3d 725, (N.Y.Crim.Ct. Oct. 4, 2018) | 61 Misc.3d 966, 2018 N.Y. Slip Op. 28306, 2018 WL 4837574 (N.Y.Crim.Ct. Oct. 4, 2018) | This New York case reflects Defendant's motion to dismiss the "accusatory instrument" in the interests of justice (essentially asking the complaint to be dismissed) for violating Agricultural and Markets Law (AML) § 353, Overdriving, Torturing and Injuring Animals or Failure to Provide Proper Sustenance for Animals. Defendant's primary argument is that she is not the owner of the dog nor is she responsible for care of the dog. The dog belongs to her "abusive and estranged" husband. The husband left the dog in the care of their daughter, who lives on the second floor above defendant. When the husband left for Florida, he placed the dog in the backyard attached to his and defendant's ground floor apartment. The dog did not have proper food, water, or shelter, and slowly began to starve resulting in emaciation. While defendant asserts she has been a victim of domestic violence who has no criminal record, the People counter that defendant was aware of the dog's presence at her residence and allowed the dog to needlessly suffer. This court noted that defendant's motion is time-barred and must be denied. Further, despite the time bar, defendant did not meet her burden to dismiss in the interests of justice. The court noted that, even viewing animals as property, failure to provide sustenance of the dog caused it to suffer needlessly. In fact, the court quoted from in Matter of Nonhuman Rights Project, Inc. v. Lavery (in which denied a writ of habeas corpus for two chimpanzees) where the court said "there is not doubt that [a chimpanzee] is not merely a thing." This buttressed the court's decision with regard to the dog here because "he Court finds that their protection from abuse and neglect are very important considerations in the present case." Defendant's motion to dismiss in the interest of justice was denied. | Case |
| VA - Impound - § 3.2-6547. Acceptance of animals for research or experimentation; prohibition | Va. Code Ann. § 3.2-6547 | VA ST § 3.2-6547 | This Virginia statute provides that no animal bearing a tag, license or tattooed identification shall be used or accepted by any person for the purpose of medical research or experimentation, unless the individual who owns such animal consents in writing. | Statute |
| OH - Humane Slaughter - Chapter 945. Humane Slaughter of Livestock. | R.C. § 945.01 - 99 | OH ST § 945.01 - 99 | These laws comprise Ohio's humane slaughter provisions. After July 1, 1967, no method of slaughtering livestock or handling in connection with the commercial slaughtering of livestock shall be utilized unless it is humane. Humane methods are defined as those that render animals insensible to pain by a single blow or gunshot or an electrical, chemical, or other means that is rapid and effective. Slaughter in accordance with the ritual requirements of the Jewish faith or any other religious faith that prescribes a method of slaughter whereby the animal suffers loss of consciousness by anemia of the brain is also allowed. Violation of the act results in a fine of not more than one hundred dollars. | Statute |
| MS - Jackson - Chapter 18 Animals (Article 1: In General) | Code of Ordinances, City of Jackson, Mississippi §§ 18-1, 18-3, 18-4, 18-11, 18-21 |
In Jackson, Mississippi, an animal that damages public or private property is considered a public nuisance and it is the duty the animal's owner to prevent his or her animal from becoming a public nuisance. Additionally, in these ordinances, an animal control officer is authorized to discharge a firearm as the sole effective means for controlling a public nuisance. These ordinances also prohibit any person except a licensed veterinarian from cropping a dog's ears and also provide penalties for any person violating this chapter. |
Local Ordinance | |
| Roos v. Loeser | 183 P. 204 (Cal.App.1.Dist.,1919) | 41 Cal.App. 782 (Cal.App.1.Dist.,1919) |
This is an action for damages alleged to have been sustained by plaintiff by reason of the killing of her dog, of the variety known as Pomeranian, by an Airedale belonging to the defendant. In 1919, a California court determined damages to be limited to the veterinary expenses connected with the injury to the animal. In the opinion, the court lovingly discusses the value of the animal. Notwithstanding these words of praise for the small animal, the court decided that the value was limited to the fair market value and related expenses. |
Case |