Results
| Title | Citation | Alternate Citation | Summary | Type |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| SC - Exotic Pets - § 47-5-50. Prohibition on sale of wild carnivores as pets; sale of domesticated ferrets. | Code 1976 § 47-5-20, § 47-5-50 | SC ST § 47-5-20, § 47-5-50 | This South Carolina law provides that no carnivores, which normally are not domesticated, may be sold as pets in this State. A carnivore kept by an individual must not be allowed to run at large and then returned to confinement. A normally wild animal indigenous to this State, if held captive for a period of time, may be released to the wild. This section does not apply to domesticated ferrets. Each business that sells ferrets must also display a notice about the potential danger of unprovoked attacks against humans. | Statute |
| Farm Sanctuary, Inc. v. Department of Food & Agriculture | 74 Cal.Rptr.2d 75 (Cal.App. 2 Dist.,1998.) |
Environmental group brought suit challenging regulation allowing ritual slaughter exception to statute requiring that animals be treated humanely. The Superior Courtupheld regulation and appeal was taken. The Court of Appeal, Masterson, J., held that: (1) group had standing to sue, and (2) regulation was valid. |
Case | |
| Rowbotham v. Maher | 658 A.2d 912 (R.I. 1995) |
The plaintiff argues that G.L. 1956 (1987 Reenactment) § 4-13-16 permits recovery for indirect injuries, specifically including emotional trauma resulting from the destruction of property, in this instance the destruction of plaintiff's dog by two other dogs. The court disagrees, finding that under § 4-13-16, a person may recover damages in a civil action from a dog owner where the dog causes an injury to a person or to another domestic animal, and nothing in the statute permits recovery for emotional trauma. With regard to the negligent infliction of emotional distress claim, the court notes that in this jurisdiction a third party may recover if, inter alia, the party is a close relative of the victim, which was not the case here. |
Case | |
| IL - Elephant - 5/48-11. Unlawful use of an elephant in a traveling animal act | 720 I.L.C.S. 5/48-11 | IL ST CH 720 § 5/48-11 | This Illinois law states that a person commits unlawful use of an elephant in a traveling animal act when he or she knowingly allows for the participation of an African elephant (Loxodonta Africana) or Asian elephant (Elephas maximus) protected under the federal Endangered Species Act of 1973 in a traveling animal act. Violation is a Class A misdemeanor. This Section does not apply to an exhibition of elephants at a non-mobile, permanent institution, or other facility. | Statute |
| Irwin v. Degtiarov | 85 Mass.App.Ct. 234 (2014) | 8 N.E.3d 296 (2014) | In this case, Degtiarov's unleashed dog attacked Irwin's dog without provocation. Though Irwin's dog survived, there were significant veterinary costs. Irwin brought this suit for damages in the form of veterinary costs, which were granted by the district court and affirmed by the appellate court. The sole issue on appeal considers whether damages should be capped at the market value of the dog, despite the reasonableness of the veterinary costs necessary to treat the dog's injuries. The appellate court affirms the damages for reasonable veterinary costs that were incurred for damage caused by a dog, even if these costs exceed the market or replacement value of the animal injured by the dog. | Case |
| VA - Exotic Pets - Article 11. Hybrid Canines | Va. Code Ann. § 3.2-6581 - 6584 | VA ST § 3.2-6581 - 6584 | This section provides Virginia's hybrid canine laws (registered or described to a veterinarian, animal control, or other listed authority as a wolf or coyote-dog cross) Under the section, any locality may, by ordinance, establish a permit system to ensure the adequate confinement and responsible ownership of hybrid canines. Violation of an ordinance enacted pursuant to this section is a Class 3 misdemeanor for the first violation and a Class 1 misdemeanor for any subsequent violation. Further, it is the duty of any animal control officer or other officer who may find a hybrid canine in the act of killing or injuring livestock or poultry to kill such hybrid canine forthwith, whether such hybrid canine bears a tag or not. | Statute |
| OK - Assistance Animals - Assistance Animal/Guide Dog Laws | 4 Okl. St. Ann. § 801; 7 Okl. St. Ann. § 12 - 13; Okl. St. Ann. § 19.1 - 19.2; 21 Okl. St. Ann. § 649.3; 25 Okl. St. Ann. § 1452; 41 Okl. St. Ann. § 113.1; 41 Okl. St. Ann. § 113.2 | OK ST T. 7 § 12 - 13; OK ST T. 7 § 19.1 - 19.2; OK ST T. 21 § 649.3; OK ST T. 25 § 1452; OK ST T. 41 § 113.1; OK ST T. 41 § 113.2 | The following statutes comprise the state's relevant assistance animal and guide dog laws. | Statute |
| GOODWIN v. E. B. NELSON GROCERY CO. | 132 N.E. 51 (Mass. 1921) | 239 Mass. 232 (1921) |
Plaintiff brought her dog into a store. The dog fought with the store owner's cat. After the fight was over, and the animals were calm, plaintiff reached down and grabbed the cat's front paw. The cat scratched and bit plaintiff, who brought a negligence action against the store owner. The court held that plaintiff could not recover because plaintiff did not exercise due care when she interfered with a strange animal, and there was no evidence that the cat was vicious. |
Case |
| People v. Beauvil | 2008 WL 2685893; 872 N.Y.S.2d 692 (Table), (N.Y.Just.Ct.,2008) | 20 Misc.3d 1116(A); 2008 WL 2685893; 2008 N.Y. Slip Op. 51370(U) |
This New York case came before this Court after the District Attorney refused to prosecute the case. The complaintant alleged that on April 16, 2008, he was walking down a public sidewalk when a loose dog, later identified as belonging to the defendants, ran up to and bit the complainant on the hand. Police were contacted and a complaint was made to the Village of Westbury Attorney who then advised the complainant to file a formal complaint with the Nassau County District Attorney's office. The District Attorney's office declined to prosecute and instead suggested that the Village handle the matter. This Court held that it has no jurisdiction to hear the misdemeanor charge stemming from the violation of Agriculture & Markets Law § 121 (but then did list the other avenues available for the complaintant). This Court, sua sponte, also held that the Agriculture & Markets Law § 121, as applied to Nassau County Village Justice Courts, is unconstitutional. This was due to the fact that Village Courts have no jurisdiction (or ability, as pointed out by the court) to hear misdemeanors. |
Case |
| Ley 22.421, 1981 | LEY Nº 22.421 | Ley 22.421 is the the law for the protection of wild fauna. It regulates conservation and the use of the wild fauna in Argentina. This law establishes that the protection of wild fauna is of public interest and therefore all the citizens have the duty to protect it. When a person resulted harmed when executing this duty, they can seek administrative compensation. Article 3 establishes what animals are considered wild fauna, wild animals, wild animals that live under the control of humans, in natural or artificial environments, and domestic animals that, for any reason, return to the wild. Wildlife are deemed to be part of this category in terms of this law, with exception of the animals subject to fishing laws. Other matters regulated by this law include national and international trade and transportation of wild fauna, protection of the environment, hunting and its requirements, and the responsibilities of the authorities in prosecuting crimes and imposing penalties. | Statute |