|
NC - Ordinances - § 160A-186. Regulation of domestic animals |
This North Carolina statute provides that a city may by ordinance regulate, restrict, or prohibit the keeping, running, or going at large of any domestic animals, including dogs and cats. The ordinance may provide that animals allowed to run at large in violation of the ordinance may be seized and sold or destroyed after reasonable efforts to notify their owner. |
|
NC - Ordinances - § 67-4.5. Local ordinances |
This North Carolina statute provides that nothing in the dangerous dog laws shall be construed to prevent a city or county from adopting or enforcing its own program for control of dangerous dogs. |
|
NC - Rabies - § 130A-195. Destroying stray or feral animals in quarantine districts |
This North Carolina statute provides that when quarantine has been declared and dogs and cats continue to run uncontrolled in the area, any peace officer or Animal Control Officer shall have the right, after reasonable effort has been made to apprehend the animals, to destroy the uncontrolled dogs and cats and properly dispose of their bodies. |
|
NC - Restaurant, animals - 2656 PHYSICAL FACILITIES |
This North Carolina regulation makes amendments to the Food Code related to dogs and cats in outdoor dining areas. Dogs and cats are allowed in outdoor dining areas provided the dogs or cats are physically restrained and do not pass through the indoor area of the food establishment. All live animals, including pet cats and dogs, are not permitted to come into physical contact with any serving food, serving dishes, tableware, linens, utensils, or other food service items. Employees of a food establishment who prepare or handle food must not physically contact any live animals. |
|
NC - Service Animals - § 20-187.4. Disposition of retired service animals |
This statute allows for a retired service animal to be transferred to an officer or employee who had custody of the animal during the animal's public service, a surviving spouse or surviving children of a deceased officer or employee who had custody of the animal during its service, or an organization dedicated to assisting retired service animals. |
|
NC - Trusts - § 36C-4-408. Trust for care of animal |
This North Carolina provides that a trust for the care of one or more designated domestic or pet animals alive at the time of creation of the trust is valid. Further, no portion of the principal or income may be converted to the use of the trustee or to any use other than for the benefit of the designated animal or animals. The trust terminates upon the death of the animal named or the last surviving animal named in the trust. |
|
NC - Veterinary - Article 11. 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. |
|
North Carolina v. Nance |
The appellate court held that the trial court erred in denying the motion to suppress the evidence seized by animal control officers without a warrant. Several days passed between when the officers first came upon the horses and when they were seized. The officers could have obtained a warrant in those days; thus, no exigent circumstances were present.
|
|
Phillips v. North Carolina State University |
University operated a horse breeding management facility. Industrial Commission found that University was negligent in broodmare's death that occurred during transport. The Court of Appeals held that mare’s owners were entitled to lost profit for a single breeding cycle.
|
|
Ruiz v. Franklin County Animal Control |
This North Carolina case is an appeal from a denial of summary judgment in favor of Franklin County Animal Control. Defendants argue that the trial court erred by declining to enter summary judgment in their favor on the basis of governmental immunity. The appellate court agreed, reversed the trial court's decision, and remanded for an entry of summary judgment for defendants. The court found that there is no dispute in the record that Franklin County Animal Control and Stallings, in his official capacity as an Animal Control Officer, were performing a governmental function in impounding and euthanizing plaintiff's dog. Further, plaintiff failed to allege in her complaint that defendants waived governmental immunity, subjecting her action to dismissal.
|
