Kentucky

Displaying 41 - 48 of 48
Titlesort descending Summary
KY - Trade - Buying and selling protected wildlife These statutes relate to trade in wildlife. The first statute prohibits the trade in protected wildlife. The next law prohibits the hunting of bears. Finally, the Kentucky statute providing punishment for violation of aforementioned statutes is provided.
KY - Veterinary - Chapter 321. Veterinarians. These are the state's veterinary practice laws. 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.
KY - Wildlife, Bounty - Chapter 150. Fish and Wildlife Resources. This Kentucky law provides that, upon a resolution of the fiscal court that finds that beavers pose a threat to farmland, trees, or other property, the fiscal court may request a bounty on beaver. Each beaver tail presented to any conservation officer nets $10 (possibly offset by $1 for the cost of administering the bounty program).
KY -Wills and Trusts - 386B.4-080 Trust for care of animal A trust may be created to provide for the care of an animal alive during the settlor's lifetime. The trust terminates on the death of the animal or, if the trust was created to provide for the care of more than one (1) animal alive during the settlor's lifetime, on the death of the last surviving animal.
Lee v. Cook


Amicus Curae brief on why suit for wrongful death of a dog can include emotional damages.

Overview of Kentucky Great Ape Laws This is a short overview of Kentucky Great Ape law.
Stephanski v. Wimpy Complaint against a vet. for malpractice. Plaintiff's dog died after it was neutered. Plaintiff sought non-economic damages.
Tracy Skaggs and James David Hardin and Mark Skaggs v. Wal-Mart Stores East, Inc. and 21st Century Pets


This case involves a suit by a dog owner against Wal-Mart and 21st Century Pets after an indoor pet boundary fence and transmitter caused fatal injuries to plaintiff’s dog. The Plaintiff alleged that the product was so defective as to create causes of action based on strict liability, negligence, breach of implied and express warranties, fraud, and negligent misrepresentation. The Jefferson County Court held that the “fair market value standard falls far short of fair compensation for the loss of a companion animal.” The court agreed that the household goods exception, well-recognized under Kentucky law, was an example of the extension of damages for property beyond fair market value.

Pages