|VT - Assistance animal - Assistance Animal/Guide Dog Laws||The following statutes comprise the state's relevant assistance animal and guide dog laws.|
|Vosburgh v. Kimball||
|Vermont Laws: Act 34: 1846||Act 34 from 1846 concerns the amendment of the statute entitled "Offences against private property." Specifically, the act concerns the statutes that covers cruelty to animals and larceny of animals.|
|Vermont Law 1854-1855: Cruelty to Animals||This document contains Vermont's anti-cruelty law from 1854.|
|Scheele v. Dustin||
|Morgan v. Kroupa||
Finder found Owner’s lost dog.
Finder posted signs in order to locate Owner.
More than a year later, the owner contacted Finder to take back the dog.
However, Finder was permitted to keep the dog, since she had cared for the dog and made good efforts to locate the true owner.
|Lamare v. North Country Animal League||
|In re Estate of Howard Brand, Late of Essex Junction, Vermont||
|Hament v. Baker||The custody of an eleven year old German wirehaired pointer was the central issue in this Vermont divorce case. While both parties testified to their strong emotional ties to the dog and to the care that each spouse provided, the Superior Court awarded custody to the husband. The wife appealed the Superior Court’s decision arguing that the court erred in refusing a joint arrangement, that the court’s finding was not supported by the evidence, and that this finding provided an arbitrary basis for award. On appeal, the Supreme Court of Vermont held that the family court division could consider factors not set out in 15 V.S.A. § 751(b); specifically, the welfare of the animal and the emotional connection between the animal and each spouse. The court found that both parties were afforded an opportunity to put on evidence regarding both factors without restriction in the Superior Court. The Supreme Court of Vermont also held that the Superior Court was correct in its statement that the family division could not enforce a visitation or shared custody order for companion animals. Unlike child custody matters, the court said, there is no legislative authority for the court to play a continuing role in the supervision of the parties with respect to the care and sharing of a companion animal. The Superior Court’s decision of awarding custody to the husband was therefore affirmed.|
|Goodby v. Vetpharm, Inc.||