|
AR - Pet Sales - Chapter 97. Retail Pet Stores. |
This statutory section comprises the Arkansas Retail Pet Store Consumer Protection Act of 1991. The purpose of the act is to ensure that purchasers receive consumer animals that are physically and temperamentally sound, healthy, and fit as companions. The Act also provides a means by which the acquisition and care of those animals can be monitored. |
|
AZ - Pet Sales - Title 44. Trade and Commerce. Chapter 11. Regulations Concerning Particular Businesses. |
This Arizona statutory section comprises the state's pet shop laws. The section requires that retail pet sellers provide purchasers a notice of rights that includes a statement of good health signed by a veterinarian. Purchasers have fifteen days to return unhealthy or diseased dogs and receive a refund or compensation for reasonable veterinary expenses. |
|
Backyard Breeding: Regulatory Nuisance, Crime Precursor |
This Article fills this gap by addressing the problems of unregulated, small-volume dog breeding. Part I provides an overview of the regulatory regimes that govern dog breeding in the United States; an Appendix provides citations to and summaries of the relevant provisions of each state's laws. Part II steps back and describes backyard breeding operations and their harms, including, at times, their role in larger criminal enterprises. Part III reviews literature on the regulation of “low risk” activities and develops a practical, three-step approach to regulating backyard breeding, to efficiently resolve much nuisance-level backyard breeding and illuminate the pernicious breeding. Part IV concludes the Article. |
|
Bormaster v. Henderson |
This appeal arises out of a suit brought under the Texas Deceptive Trade Practices-Consumer Protection Act (DTPA) and for breach of expressed and implied warranties after plaintiff purchased an allegedly defective umbrella cockatoo from a pet shop. Prior to purchase, appellee-seller stated the cockatoo was healthy and gave the appellant an "Official Health Certificate for Animals and Fowl" with a 72-hour expressed warranty on the health of the cockatoo. Two weeks later the cockatoo began showing signs of poor health so appellant took it to a veterinarian (it later died). This court concluded the trial court had sufficient rebuttal evidence upon which to hold appellant failed to prove the cockatoo's death by a preponderance of the evidence. Further, this court agreed with the trial court's finding that appellant failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the appellees committed any false, misleading or deceptive acts under the DTPA, or breached any expressed or implied warranties.
|
|
Boyle Ventures, LLC v. City of Fayetteville |
This case involved a constitutional challenge to a Fayetteville ordinance that would have prohibited pet stores from selling dogs and cats unless obtained from approved shelters or rescues. The plaintiff pet store operator argued the ordinance violated both the Arkansas Retail Pet Store Consumer Protection Act and Working Animal Protection Act, constituting an unconstitutional municipal law contrary to state law. The Arkansas Supreme Court held the case was moot since the ordinance was repealed before taking effect, but clarified in dicta that the city's authority to prevent animal cruelty under Ark. Code Ann. § 14-54-103 does not extend to passing ordinances that conflict with state laws protecting lawful animal enterprises. The court reversed the circuit court's finding that the ordinance violated state law and remanded with instructions to dismiss, while dismissing the direct appeal as moot. Chief Justice Baker concurred in the result but diverged from the mootness rationale, arguing the ordinance did not conflict with the Arkansas Retail Pet Store Act or Working Animal Protection Act under a proper statutory interpretation. She contended the circuit court erred in its statutory analysis, making Boyle’s ACRA claim fail as a matter of law without reaching immunity or damages. Justice Womack dissented, asserting the circuit court erred by not first addressing the jurisdictional issue of the City’s statutory immunity under Ark. Code Ann. § 21-9-301. Justice Womack criticized the majority for conflating statutory immunity with federal qualified immunity and urged remand for a factual determination on whether the City had liability insurance, which would nullify immunity. The dissent viewed the merits discussion as advisory absent this threshold ruling.
|
|
Brief Overview of Commercial Breeder Laws |
This brief summary discusses what a commercial breeder does and what laws govern breeding operations. It then goes into how loopholes in state laws allow puppy mills to thrive. The article concludes with the idea that more states need to adopt stricter breeder laws and consumers need to do their part by not buying puppies raised in puppy mills.
|
|
Brief Overview of Retail Pet Stores |
This brief overview discusses the welfare issues that arise at retail pet establishments. It also outlines the types of laws that cover such pet shops.
|
|
Brief Summary of Commercial Breeders and Puppy Mills |
This provides a brief overview of the commercial breeding industry in the United States. |
|
Brief Summary of Swap Meet Laws |
|
|
Brief Summary of the Laws Regulating Rescue and Foster Care Programs for Companion Animals |
This summary briefly examines laws relating to foster-care and non-profit rescue organizations. It discusses concerns that arise relating to contractual liability, local ordinances, and tort claims. |
