Results

Displaying 6051 - 6060 of 6592
Titlesort ascending Author Citation Alternate Citation Agency Citation Summary Type
AZ - Dog Ordinances - Powers and duties of board of supervisors (dogs/animals) A. R. S. § 11-1005 AZ ST § 11-1005 This Arizona statute provides that each county board of supervisors may regulate dogs, including the designation of a county enforcement agent, contracting with any city or town to enforce the provisions of any ordinance enacted by such city or town for the control of dogs, and for the unincorporated areas of the county, by ordinance, regulate, restrain and prohibit the running at large of dogs and the excessive and unrestrained barking of dogs. They may also establish either civil or criminal penalties for violations of the above ordinances and establish a rabies quarantine zone. Statute
AZ - Dog - Arizona Consolidated Dog Laws A. R. S. § 11-1001 - 1029; § 28-2422 - 2422.02; § 17-309 AZ ST § 11-1001 - 1029; AZ ST § 28-2422 - 2422.02; AZ ST § 17-309 These Arizona statutes comprise the laws relating to dogs and animal bites. Included are provisions related to registration, collaring, and vaccination of dogs. With regard to dangerous dogs, Arizona law provides that a person with knowledge of a dog's vicious propensity must also keep the dog in an enclosed yard or confined area with a sign indicating the dog's vicious tendencies. Statute
AZ - Disaster planning - Arizona State Emergency Response and Recovery Plan Arizona State Emergency Response and Recovery Plan This part of Arizona's emergency response plan describes the state's responsibility toward pets and service animals. Administrative
AZ - Cruelty - Consolidated Cruelty/Animal Fighting Statutes A. R. S. § 12-1011; § 13-2910 - 12; § 13-1411 AZ ST § 12-1011; § 13-2910 - 12; § 13-1411 The Arizona section contains the state's anti-cruelty and animal fighting provisions. A person commits cruelty to animals if he or she intentionally, knowingly or recklessly subjects any animal under the person's custody or control to cruel neglect or abandonment, fails to provide medical attention necessary to prevent protracted suffering to any animal under the person's custody or control, inflicts unnecessary physical injury to any animal, or recklessly subjects any animal to cruel mistreatment, among other things. Animal is defined as a mammal, bird, reptile or amphibian. Exclusions include hunting and agricultural activities in accordance with those laws and regulations in Arizona. Intentionally attending a dogfight is a felony under this provision whereas attendance at a cockfight is a misdemeanor. Statute
AZ - Breed - § 20-1510. Homeowner's or renter's insurance; dog breeds A. R. S. § 20-1510 AZ ST § 20-1510 This 2022 Arizona law states that the breed of a dog may not be the sole factor considered or used for any of the following purposes: (1) underwriting or actuarial processes for determining risk, liability or actual or potential losses related to claims involving dogs under a policy of insurance; or (2) questionnaires, surveys or other means of gathering information regarding ownership or possession of a dog or the presence of a dog on premises insured or to be insured under a policy of insurance. Statute
AZ - Assistance Animal - Arizona's Assistance Animal/Guide Dog Laws A. R. S. § 11-1008; § 11-1024, § 13-2910; § 9-500.32 AZ ST § 11-1008; § 11-1024, § 13-2910, § 9-500.32 The following statutes comprise the state's relevant assistance animal and service animal laws. Statute
AWA - Birds - Subpart G. Specifications for the Humane Handling, Care, Treatment, and Transportation of Birds 9 C.F.R. § 3.150 - 3.168 These AWA regulations comprise Subpart G for the Humane Handling, Care, Treatment, and Transportation of Birds. Administrative
Avoiding a Triple Frown: The Need for a National Horse Racing Commission Anthony Russolello Animal Legal & Historical Center

This paper highlights the problems of the horse racing industry in an effort to advocate why a national horse racing commission is needed. As currently positioned, the industry has failed to address these problems causing not only a decline in the sport, but also contributing to the many horse breakdowns on the track. With each state having its own racing commission to regulate the sport in that state, the industry as a whole has remained fragmented. Through its commerce powers, Congress could and should mandate a national horse racing commission with a standardized set of mandatory rules for the entire sport.

Article
Aversa v. Bartlett 783 N.Y.S.2d 174 (N.Y. 2004) 783 N.Y.S.2d 174

Plaintiff was awarded $100,000 for past pain and suffering and $200,000 for future pain and suffering after she was bitten in the face by Defendant's dog.  Defendant appealed on the basis that the jury award for future pain and suffering was unreasonable compensation.  The Appellate Division of the Supreme Court modified the judgment to be $75,000 for past pain and suffering after Plaintiff stipulated to the decrease.

Case
Auto Interlocutorio Numero Veinte: QUATTROCCHIO WANDA S/ MALTRATO ANIMAL- Argentina Auto Interlocutorio Numero Veinte: QUATTROCCHIO WANDA S/ MALTRATO ANIMAL Caso QUATTROCCHIO, animales como sujetos de derecho en causas penales, derecho animal en Argentina, derecho animal en America Latina Este es un caso de crueldad animal en el que Wanda Quattrochio presencio al demandado golpeando con un látigo a los perros del vecino. Wanda filmó el incidente y presentó una denuncia por crueldad animal. El demandado estaba a cargo del cuidado de los perros mientras su dueño estaba fuera. Cuando las autoridades llegaron a la casa para confiscar a los animales, encontraron a seis perros en pequeñas jaulas sucias, con agua sucia y sin comida. Luego de considerar los testimonios de los testigos y otras pruebas, el juez concluyó que el acusado había infringido los artículos 1 a 3 de la ley de protección animal (Ley 14.346) y fue procesado por el delito de crueldad animal. En su análisis del caso, la jueza afirmó que los animales no son cosas ni recursos sino seres vivos con potencial de ser "sujetos de vida". Case

Pages