Results
| Title | Citation | Alternate Citation | Agency Citation | Summary | Type |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| CA - Cruelty, exemptions - § 599c. Construction of title; game laws; | West's Ann. Cal. Penal Code § 599c | CA PENAL § 599c | This statute makes it clear that the title is not meant to interfere with “game laws” or the right to destroy venomous reptiles or other dangerous animal. Neither is there an intent to interfere with laws regarding the destruction of certain birds, interfere with the right to kill animals used for food or with scientific experiments. | Statute | |
| City of La Marque v. Braskey | 216 S.W.3d 861 (Tex. Ct. App. 2007) | 2007 WL 14481 (Tex. Ct. App.) (unpublished) |
A city's ordinance did not allow a kennel, defined as a place containing more than four dogs and cats, to be operated within 100 feet of a residence, school, or church. A woman kept as many as 100 cats at a time in a shelter within 100 feet of three homes, and she was criminally charged under the ordinance. The court found that the ordinance did not violate the plaintiff's constitutional rights because there was no right to use her property in any manner that she chose. |
Case | |
| US - Service Animals - Part 35. Nondiscrimination on the Basis of Disability in State and Local | 28 C.F.R. § 35.101 to .139 | The purpose of this part is to effectuate subtitle A of title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (42 U.S.C. 12131), which prohibits discrimination on the basis of disability by public entities. The section defines "service animal" as any dog that is individually trained to do work or perform tasks for the benefit of an individual with a disability, including a physical, sensory, psychiatric, intellectual, or other mental disability. Other species of animals, whether wild or domestic, trained or untrained, are not service animals for the purposes of this definition. | Administrative | ||
| OK - Lost Property - Chapter 11. Bailments. Finders of Lost Goods. | 15 Okl. St. Ann. § 511 - 518 | OK ST T. 15 § 511 - 518 | These statutes comprise Oklahoma's lost property provisions. | Statute | |
| US - Cattle - Milk Income Loss Contract Program | 7 U.S.C.A. § 7981 - 7984 | Federal program that compensates dairy producers when domestic milk prices fall below a specified level. | Statute | ||
| ND - Wildlife, possession/rehabilitation - Article 48.1-09. Nontraditional Livestock. | N.D. Admin. Code § 48.1-09-01-01 - 48.1-09-06-01 | NDAC 48.1-09-01-01 - 48.1-09-06-01 | This section of North Dakota regulations concerns non-traditional livestock: any nondomestic species held in confinement or which is physically altered to limit movement and facilitate capture. The regulations describe three categories of animals: category 1 - those species generally considered domestic, or not inherently dangerous (such as turkeys, geese, ranch mink, and ducks); category 2 - certain protected species or those species that may pose health risks to humans or animals or may be environmentally hazardous (such as all deer, zebras, and nondomestic cats not listed in category 3); and category 3 - those species determined by the board to pose special concerns, including species which are inherently dangerous or environmentally hazardous (such as nondomestic swine, big cats, bears, wolves, venomous reptiles, primates, and non-domestic sheep and goats). Additionally, a person may not keep a skunk or raccoon in captivity. There are specific licensing requirements for category 2 and 3 species. The owner shall obtain a license from the board before acquiring animals classified as nontraditional livestock category 2 and category 3 species. A license or permit may not be granted by the board until it is satisfied that the provisions for housing and caring for such nontraditional livestock and for protecting the public are proper and adequate and in accordance with the standards prescribed by the board. | Administrative | |
| Tilikum ex rel. People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, Inc. v. Sea World Parks & Entertainment, Inc. | 842 F.Supp.2d 1259 (S.D.Cal.,2012) | 2012 WL 399214 (S.D.Cal.,2012) |
Plaintiffs sued aquarium for declaratory and injunctive relief seeking a declaration that wild-captured orcas were being held in violation of the Thirteenth Amendment’s prohibition on slavery and involuntary servitude. The court dismissed the action, holding that Plaintiffs had no standing because the Thirteenth Amendment only applies to humans, and therefore, the court lacked subject matter jurisdiction. |
Case | |
| Zageris v. Whitehall | 594 N.E.2d 129 (Ohio App. 10 Dist.,1991) | 72 Ohio App.3d 178 |
The single-family residence property owner and owner of dogs kept on property filed suit for declaratory judgment, petition for habeas corpus, and civil rights claims against city based on city's enforcement of ordinance prohibiting number of dogs on property. He then appealed the ruling in favor for the city. The Ohio Court of Appeals held that the local ordinance limiting number of dogs on single family property was a nuisance and not zoning measure and consequently a valid exercise of city's police power. |
Case | |
| Martinez v. Robledo | 147 Cal.Rptr.3d 921 (Cal.App. 2 Dist.) | 210 Cal.App.4th 384; 2012 WL 5208537 (Cal.App. 2 Dist.) |
These two consolidated California appeals address the measure of damages for the wrongful injury to a companion animal. Both respondents filed motions in limine concerning the issue of damages in the cases and, in both case, the trial court limited the measure of damages to the market value of the dogs. On appeal, the appellants argued that the measure of damages should go beyond market value to cover the reasonable costs of the pets' treatment. The appellate court found the recent case of Kimes v. Grosser (2011) 195 Cal.App.4th 1556 (decided after these appeals were filed) persuasive (where the court held that a plaintiff can recover reasonable and necessary costs where a pet is wrongfully injured). The court reasoned that otherwise, the injured animal's owner would bear the burden of all the costs of treatment, regardless of the wrongdoer's conduct. Moreover, this ruling reflects a basic principle of tort law - to make a plaintiff whole again - and accords with the different way animals, as property, are treated in the criminal arena. Thus, the court agreed with Kimes that allowing a pet owner to recover reasonable and necessary costs related to the treatment of an animal wrongfully injured is an appropriate measure of damages. |
Case | |
| TN - Assistance Animal - Assistance Animal/Guide Dog Laws | T. C. A. § 39-14-208, 212, 216; § 39-16-304; § 44-17-403, 404; § 55-8-180; § 62-7-112; § 66-7-104, 106; 111; § 66-28-406; § 66-28-505 | TN ST § 39-14-208, 212, 216; § 39-16-304; § 44-17-403, 404; § 55-8-180; § 62-7-112; § 66-7-104, 106; 111; § 66-28-406; § 66-28-505 | The following statutes comprise the state's relevant assistance animal and guide dog laws. | Statute |