|
IN - Law enforcement - Chapter 42.5. Burial with Law Enforcement Animals or Service Animals |
This chapter allows the cremated remains of a deceased law enforcement or military animal of a deceased owner to be scattered, placed, or interred in a manner described in this subsection before, after, or in conjunction with the interment of the remains of the deceased owner. The deceased animal's cremated remains may be scattered or placed on top of the deceased owner's burial plot or interred on top of the deceased owner's burial plot as long as the interment of the deceased animal's cremated remains does not encroach on a neighboring burial plot, involve disinterment of the owner, or involve digging greater than one foot of depth. The person owning the deceased animal must consent in writing and give this consent to the cemetery owner. If the deceased owner does not own the animal at the time of the deceased animal's death, the deceased owner may provide written notice in his or her last will, in a written designation to the cemetery, or in a funeral planning declaration. |
|
IN - Rabies - Rule 5. Rabies Immunization |
These regulations contain Indiana's rabies provisions. |
|
In Arkansas Which Comes First, the Chicken or the Environment? |
This article looks at the effect of Arkansas' extensive poultry industry, which operates without regulation, on the environment, wildlife, fish and water quality.
|
|
In Defense of Animals v. National Institutes of Health |
This FOIA case was brought against the National Institutes of Health ("NIH") by In Defense of Animals (“IDA”) seeking information related to approximately 260 chimpanzees located as the Alamogordo Primate Facility (“APF”) in New Mexico. Before the court now is NIH's Motion for Partial Reconsideration as to the release of records. This Court rejected NIH’s arguments that the records are not “agency records” because they belong to NIH's contractor, Charles River Laboratories, Inc. (“CRL”), a publicly held animal research company. Also, the Court was equally unconvinced that the information requested here is “essentially a blueprint of the APF facility,” and that release of such information presents a security risk to the facility.
This Order was Superseded by
In Defense of Animals v. National Institutes of Health
, 543 F.Supp.2d 70 (D.D.C., 2008).
|
|
In Defense of Animals v. Oregon Health Sciences University |
A nonprofit corporation petitioned the trial court for injunctive and declaratory relief regarding fees charged by a state university primate research center for document inspection. The circuit court dismissed the action with prejudice, reasoning it lacked subject matter jurisdiction over the fee issue and, assuming jurisdiction existed, the fees were in compliance with law. The Court of Appeals reversed and remanded, holding the circuit court had jurisdiction to review the basis, reasonableness and amount of fees charged by the university.
|
|
Iris Lewis v. Al DiDonna, Pharmacist; James DiDonna, Pharmacist; Eckerd Drug Store of Stone Ridge, New York; Eckerd Corporation |
In this case, the plaintiff brought her dog of nine years to a veterinarian and was given a prescription for an anti-inflammatory drug called Feldene to treat the dog’s condition. After the dog died of renal failure complications, plaintiff discovered that the Feldene prescription was mislabeled by the pharmacist. The Supreme Court, Appellate Division for the Third Judicial Department held that the allegations in plaintiff’s verified complaint sufficiently allege defendant’s wanton and reckless disregard of plaintiff’s rights to survive a motion to dismiss. Further, the court noted that while plaintiff did not appeal the dismissal of her cause of action for loss of companionship, the court made it clear that loss of companionship is not cognizable cause of action in the state of New York.
|
|
Kitchin ex rel. Kitchin v. Halifax County |
In this North Carolina case, defendant dog owners appealed from a decision of the County Board of Health that ruled their dog could not be returned home because of the dog's potential exposure to rabies as result of attacking a raccoon (the dog was scheduled for euthanization). After the Board denied the owners' appeal, they filed a complaint against county which contained motions for preliminary and permanent injunctions to prevent dog's quarantine and for class certification. The Court of Appeals held that the owners' appeal of Board's decision to quarantine dog was moot because dog had already been returned home. The action against the animal control officers was dismissed because the officers were shielded by governmental immunity.
|
|
KS - Dogs - Consolidated Dog Laws |
These Kansas statutes comprise the state's dog laws. Among the provisions include licensing of dogs, specific laws that outline the care of dogs in kennel situations, and laws pertaining to dogs who endanger livestock. |
|
KS - Pet Sales - Chapter 47. Livestock and Domestic Animals. |
The following statutes comprise Kansas' Pet Animal Act. The Act outlines the requirements for pet shop operator licensing and animal dealers. |
|
KS - Rabies - 9-18-5 Importing dogs and cats. |
This Kansas regulation states that dogs and cats shall not be imported into Kansas unless accompanied by a certificate of veterinary inspection issued by a licensed veterinarian and vaccinated against rabies with a product licensed by the U.S.D.A., with the duration of immunity and method of administration in accordance with the manufacturer's guidelines. Dogs and cats under three months of age shall not be required to be vaccinated against rabies. |
