United States
Title |
Summary |
|---|---|
| DE - Spay, Neuter and Feral Cat - Subchapter II. Animal Population Control Program and Spay/Neuter Fund | This chapter represents Delaware's Animal Population Control Program. The section beings with findings from a 2002 study of how many dogs and cats were reclaimed, adopted out, or euthanized. It also has a definitional section that includes a definition for "feral cat." The chapter also describes its funding base and what parties are qualified to receive assistance under the Spay/Neuter Fund. Effective on June 29, 2006, it became mandatory for all cats and/or dogs of reproductive age to be spayed or neutered and inoculated for rabies prior to adoption from any private animal rescue groups and animal shelters. |
| DE - Tether, dog - Chapter 9. Dogs. | This Delaware statute addresses the requirements for indoor and outdoor facilities housing dogs. It includes storage, drainage, waste disposal, ventilation, lighting, shelter, height, and surface requirements. Food, water, and use of tethers are also addressed. The tether shall be of a type commonly used for the size dog involved, made of material not normally susceptible to being severed by the dog through chewing or otherwise, and shall be attached to the dog by means of a well-fitted collar that will not cause trauma or injury to the dog. The tether shall be a minimum of 10 feet in length and allow the dog convenient access to the dog house and to food and water containers. |
| DE - Trust for care of an animal - Chapter 35. Trusts | Delaware enacted its pet trust law in 2006. A trust for the care of one or more specific animals living at the settlor's death is valid. The trust terminates upon the death of all animals living at the settlor's death and covered by the terms of the trust. |
| DE - Veterinary - Chapter 33. Veterinarians. | These are the state's veterinary practice laws. Among the provisions include licensing requirements, laws concerning the state veterinary board, veterinary records laws, and the laws governing disciplinary actions for impaired or incompetent practitioners. |
| DE - Wildlife - Chapter 1. Protected Wildlife | These statutes comprise Delaware's protected wildlife provisions. The section outlines the powers and duties of the Department of Fish and Wildlife as well as how funds derived from fishing and hunting licenses may be used. The code also explains the procedure private parties may take when protected wildlife injures crops. |
| DE - Woodchuck - § 797. Woodchuck or groundhog not protected wildlife | This Delaware statute declares that the woodchuck or groundhog will not be considered protected wildlife. |
| De Lanoy v. Taylor | This Oregon case involves a dispute over who now owns a female whippet dog named "Isis." Isis was adopted from the local humane society and lived with the plaintiff and his family until 2014. In the summer of 2014, plaintiff asked his friend Rich to keep Isis while plaintiff moved to Florida. Both plaintiff and Rich understood that Rich was just caring for Isis and that plaintiff remained Isis' owner. Defendant is Rich's ex-girlfriend had a different understanding; that plaintiff had abandoned Isis and, as such, Isis became defendant's property. In 2016, plaintiff filed an action for replevin against defendant, seeking immediate return of Isis. Defendant countered with a counterclaim for a declaratory judgment that the dog was gifted to Rich - who subsequently abandoned the dog - and so defendant became the rightful owner. A bench trial ruled in favor of plaintiff, finding insufficient evidence to establish that plaintiff had gifted the dog or that Rich had abandoned the dog. On appeal, defendant raises a single procedural error, that the court erred by granting plaintiff replevin the procedures in ORCP 83 A were not followed. Notably, the court found that there was no ruling against defendant with regard to noncompliance of a court rule. More importantly, there was no challenge to the court's disposition of the declaratory judgement counterclaim. Thus, defendant presented no error in the disposition of her counterclaim. Accordingly, because the trial court declared plaintiff to be the lawful owner of Isis, and no one has challenged that declaration, the court did not reach defendant's arguments about the proper procedure for a replevin claim. |
| Deardorff v. Farnsworth |
In this case, the Oregon Court of Appeals was reviewing whether or not the trial court erred in holding that an insurance company was estopped from relying on an exclusion in an insurance policy. The plaintiffs in this case were transporting horses in California that were owned by other when the trailer carrying the horses caught fire. The insurers for the horse owners compensated the horse owners and then filed an action against plaintiffs. As a result, plaintiffs charged the defense of the action to their insurer, OMI. OMI refused to provide a defense for the plaintiffs, arguing that it was not covered in the insurance policy. Plaintiffs filed an action against OMI to recover the costs arguing that they were verbally told that this would be covered in the policy. The trial court ordered summary judgment for the plaintiffs, holding that OMI was estopped from denying liability because it had breached its contract with plaintiff. Ultimately, the court of appeals reviewed the issue and determined that the trial court had erred in its decision. The court of appeals found that based on applicable case law, estoppel cannot be used to negate an express exclusion in an insurance policy. As a result, the court reversed the trial court's decision and remanded the case. |
| Defenders of Wildlife v. Dalton |
|
| Defenders of Wildlife v. Hall |
|