Pet Sales

Displaying 151 - 160 of 174
Titlesort descending Summary
TX - Breeder - Chapter 802. Dog or Cat Breeders. Under the Texas Dog or Cat Breeders Act, a person may not act as a dog or cat breeder without a license. Facilities must be inspected at least once every 18-months, and inspectors must notify the law enforcement if they discover evidence of animal cruelty or neglect. This Act also establishes a dog or cat breeder training and enforcement account that can be used for promoting consumer awareness of this chapter, and supporting education, training, and enforcement efforts.
TX - Breeders - Chapter 91. Dog or Cat Breeders Program These are the regulations for the Texas Dog or Cat Breeder Act.
UK - Boarding - Animal Boarding Establishments Act 1963


The 1963 Animal Boarding Establishments Act deals with places where the boarding of animals is being carried on as a business. This act requires such establishments to be licensed by the local authority. The act defines "boarding establishments" as those premises, including private dwellings, where the business consists of providing accommodation for other people’s cats and dogs. When deciding to issue a license, the local authority shall consider the suitability of the conditions (e.g., size of quarters, lighting, food, water, disease control, etc.) present at the boarding establishment.
UK - Dog - Breeding and Sale of Dogs (Welfare) Act 1999


This Act amends and extends certain enactments relating to the commercial breeding and sale of dogs; regulates the welfare of dogs kept in commercial breeding establishments; extends powers of inspection; and establishes records of dogs kept at such establishments. This Act substantially amended the Breeding of Dogs Acts 1973 and 1991.
UK - Dog - Breeding of Dogs Act 1973


This Act establishes a regime of local authority licensing and inspection of dog breeding establishments.
UK - Dog - Breeding of Dogs Act 1991


This Act extends the powers of inspection for the purposes of the Breeding of Dogs Act 1973 to premises not covered by a licence under that Act, thereby enabling local authorities to investigate suspicions that a dog breeding establishment is operating without the necessary license
UK - Pets - Pet Animals Act 1951



An Act establishing a licensing structure for pet shops in the


United Kingdom


. The Act sets forth certain conditions that local authorities may consider in determining whether or not to grant someone a pet shop license. In determining whether or not to grant a license, local authorities may investigate applicants and confirm that animals will be kept in a sanitary and suitable physical environment, that they will be fed and watered regularly, and that they will not be sold before they reach an appropriate age, among other factors.
United Kingdom Licensing and Regulation of Pet Shops
United Pet Supply, Inc. v. City of Chattanooga, Tenn. In June 2010, a private non-profit corporation that contracted with the City of Chattanooga to provide animal-welfare services, received complaints of neglect and unsanitary conditions at a mall pet store. Investigations revealed animals in unpleasant conditions, without water, and with no working air conditioner in the store. Animals were removed from the store, as were various business records, and the private, contracted non-profit began to revoke the store's pet-dealer permit. Pet store owners brought a § 1983 suit in federal district court against the City of Chattanooga; McKamey; and McKamey employees Karen Walsh, Marvin Nicholson, Jr., and Paula Hurn in their individual and official capacities. The Owners alleged that the removal of its animals and revocation of its pet-dealer permit without a prior hearing violated procedural due process and that the warrantless seizure of its animals and business records violated the Fourth Amendment. Walsh, Nicholson, Hurn, and McKamey asserted qualified immunity as a defense to all claims. On appeal from district court decision, the Sixth Circuit held the following:

Hurn, acting as a private animal-welfare officer, could not assert qualified immunity as a defense against suit in her personal capacity because there was no history of immunity for animal-welfare officers and allowing her to assert qualified immunity was not consistent with the purpose of 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

Walsh and Nicholson acting both as private animal-welfare officers and as specially-commissioned police officers of the City of Chattanooga, may assert qualified immunity as a defense against suit in their personal capacities. With respect to entitlement to summary judgment on the basis of qualified immunity in the procedural due-process claims: Walsh and Nicholson are entitled to summary judgment on the claim based on the seizure of the animals, Nicholson is entitled to summary judgment on the claim based on the seizure of the permit, and Walsh is denied summary judgment on the claim based on the seizure of the permit.

Regarding entitlement to summary judgment on the basis of qualified immunity on the Fourth Amendment claims: Walsh and Nicholson are entitled to summary judgment on the claim based on the seizure of the animals, Nicholson is entitled to summary judgment on the claim based on the seizure of the business records, and Walsh is denied summary judgment on the claim based on the seizure of the business records.Because qualified immunity was not an available defense to an official-capacity suit, the court held that employees may not assert qualified immunity as a defense against suit in their official capacities.

The district court’s entry of summary judgment was affirmed in part and reversed in part, and remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
US - AWA - Subpart A. Specifications for the Humane Handling, Care, Treatment, and Transportation of Dogs and Cats This set of regulations contain the humane care provisions for dogs and cats under the Animal Welfare Act.

Pages