Results
Displaying 51 - 53 of 53
| Title |
Author |
Citation | Alternate Citation | Summary | Type |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| WI - Fur - 100.35. Furs to be labeled | W. S. A. 100.35 | WI ST 100.35 | This law represents Wisconsin's fur labeling law. The law states that no person shall sell or offer or display for sale any coat, jacket or other garment made wholly or partially of fur without a label that states in English the species of fur or pelt used. This section does not apply to such garments displayed, offered, or sold at a price of less than $50. | Statute | |
| Smith v. Wisconsin Mut. Ins. Co. | 880 N.W.2d 183 (Wis. Ct. App., 2016) (unpublished) | 2016 WI App 41, ¶ 1, 369 Wis. 2d 224 (2016) | This case concerns the measure of damages for injury to companion animals in Wisconsin. It arises from the incident between the plaintiff’s 11-year-old dog and the neighbor's dog. Plaintiff’s dog sustained severe injuries that resulted in veterinary bills and related expenses for the amount of $12,235. Plaintiffs argued that they were entitled to recover all veterinary and related expenses. Additionally, the plaintiffs contended that their damages were entitled to doubling under § 174.02(1)(b) as there were records that showed that the dog’s owner had knowledge of the dog's dangerous propensities. Defendants’ insurer sought declaratory ruling arguing that under Wisconsin law, plaintiffs’ maximum recovery was the lesser amount between the dog's "cost of repair" and the dog's pre-injury fair market value, as it was the measure for personal property damage. The circuit court limited damages to $2,695, which was the amount conceded by the parties to be the replacement cost of plaintiff’s dog. In addition, that amount was doubled pursuant to § 174.02(1)(b). The court of appeals affirmed the judgment of the trial court and declined to extend Wisconsin's "keepsakes" rule to pets to provide different damages for pets that only have value to the owner. The court found there were “significant differences between an unrepairable and lost forever keepsake and an injured but "repairable" pet.” The court was also not persuaded by other states' precedent about allowing or denying veterinary treatment as part of damage awards and decided to continue to treat dogs the same as other personal property. On the additional expenses allegations, the court found them to be “expenses incurred by the Smiths to facilitate "repairing" their dog” that were subject to property damage limitations. | Case | |
| Detailed Discussion of Wisconsin Great Ape Laws | Rebecca F. Wisch | Animal Legal & Historical Center | The following article discusses Wisconsin Great Ape law. Wisconsin does not have a specific law that prohibits the possession of apes or otherwise addresses their care. The state has a chapter on captive wildlife with a number of provisions related to the possession of captive live wild animals, which would generally include great apes.The state’s endangered species law also prohibits the taking, transport, and possession of endangered or threatened species, including federally-listed species. It is unclear based on a reading of the law whether it requires state permits for foreign endangered species. The law specifically exempts zoological societies or municipal zoos from its reach. Finally, apes are covered generally under the state’s anti-cruelty laws as warm-blooded, non-human animals. The law prohibits treating animals in a cruel manner, which includes causing unnecessary and excessive pain, suffering, or unjustifiable death. Additionally, all animals kept in captivity must have adequate food, water, and shelter. | Article |