Health

Displaying 271 - 280 of 314
Titlesort descending Summary
TX - Dog - Consolidated Dog Laws These Texas statutes comprise the state's dog laws. Among the provisions include the dangerous dog laws, registration and vaccination requirements, and sterilization laws.
TX - Impound - Chapter 823. Animal Shelters Chapter 823 enumerates the standards by which animal shelters shall comply. It sets forth confinement requirements, permissible forms of euthanasia, and personnel requirements.
TX - Impound - § 826.033. Restraint, Impoundment, and Disposition of Dogs and Cats. This Texas statute provides that a municipality or county may adopt ordinances or rules to require that each dog or cat be restrained by its owner and that any stray dog or cat be declared a public nuisance. Further, it can declare that each unrestrained dog or cat be detained or impounded by the local rabies control authority. Each stray dog or cat be impounded for a period set by ordinance or rule and a humane disposition be made of each unclaimed stray dog or cat upon its expiration.
TX - Rabies - § 826.022. Vaccination; Criminal Penalty. This Texas statute provides that a person commits an offense (Class C misdemeanor) if the person fails or refuses to have each dog or cat owned by the person vaccinated against rabies and the animal is required to be vaccinated under applicable state law or local ordinance.
TX - Rabies - § 826.045. Area Rabies Quarantine. This Texas statute outlines the parameters under which a rabies quarantine area may be adopted. If this occurs, it may call for the restraint of carnivorous animals and the transportation of carnivorous animals into and out of the quarantine area. While the quarantine is in effect, the rules adopted by the board supersede all other applicable ordinances or rules applying to the quarantine area.
TX - Rabies control - § 169.22. Definitions This code is the definition section for the Texas Administrative Code's regulations on rabies control.
TX - Registration - Subchapter C: Regulation of Dogs Chapter 822, Sections .031 through .035 address the regulation of dogs. Specifically, these provisions cover the registration requirements, prohibit unregistered dogs from running at large, and enumerate the treatment of dogs that attack other domestic animals.
TX - Restaurant - § 437.025. Requirements for Dogs in Outdoor Dining Areas; Municipal Preemption This Texas law from 2019 allows food establishments to permit customers to have dogs in outdoor dining areas under certain conditions. Among other things, the restaurant must post a conspicuous sign informing patrons that dogs are permitted, create access so dogs do not enter the interior of the restaurant, require customers to keep dogs on leashes and off tables and chairs, and make sure there is no food preparation in the dog-friendly dining area. A municipality may not adopt or enforce an ordinance, rule, or similar measure that imposes a requirement on a food service establishment for a dog in an outdoor dining area that is more stringent than the requirements listed in the statute.
U.S. ex rel. Haight v. Catholic Healthcare West


The plaintiffs, In Defense of Animals and Patricia Haight brought suit against the defendants, Michael Berens, the principal research investigator of the study in question, and the Barrow Neurological Institute, St. Joseph’s Hospital and Medical Center, Catholic Healthcare West Arizona, and Catholic Healthcare West, his employers, under the False Claims Act.  In 1997, defendant Michael Berens, Ph.D., submitted a grant application to the NIH in which he sought federal funding for a project to develop a canine model to study glioma, a form of human brain cancer, and attempted to

create a process for implanting gliomas in the brains of beagles. The plaintiffs brought suit against Dr. Berens under the False Claims Act asserting that he had lied in his grant application in order to obtain NIH funding. The district court granted summary judgment to the defendants, holding that the plaintiffs failed to produce sufficient evidence from which a reasonable jury could find that the challenged grant application statements were objectively false.

 

In response, the plaintiffs filed a notice to appeal 51 days later, relying on a circuit court precedent allowing plaintiffs 60 days to file a notice of appeal in these types of cases.

 

However, an intervening Supreme Court decision declared that plaintiffs have only 30 days to file a notice to appeal in this type of case.

 

This case was amended and superseded by


US ex rel Haight v. Catholic Healthcare West

, 602 F.3d 949 (9th Cir., 2010).
Uganda - Cruelty - Chapter 220 Animal Act

Pages