United States
Displaying 4491 - 4500 of 4803
Title |
Summary |
|---|---|
| VA - Restaurant - § 3.2-5115. Animals | This Virginia law states that no animal shall be permitted in any area used for the manufacture or storage of food products. However, a dog may be allowed in designated areas of a distillery, winery, or brewery as defined in the law. |
| VA - Restaurants, animals - 2 VAC 5-585-3310. Prohibiting animals. | This Virginia regulation states that dogs may be allowed in outdoor dining areas if: (1) the outdoor dining area is not enclosed with floor-to-ceiling walls; (2) there is a separate entrance; (3) there is a sign at the main entrance stating that dogs are allowed in the outdoor dining area that is easily observable by the public; (3) food and water provided to dogs is served using equipment not used for human food service or is put in single-use receptacles; (4) dogs are not allowed to sit on chairs, benches, seats, or tables; (5) dogs are kept on a leash or within a pet carrier and under the control of adults at all times; (6) the establishment provides a means for picking up dog messes; and (7) there is a sign outlining some of these requirements observable to the public. |
| VA - Trusts - § 64.2-726. Trust for care of animal | This Virginia pet trust law becomes effective July 1, 2006. The law provides that a trust may be created to provide for the care of an animal alive during the settlor's lifetime. The trust terminates upon the death of the animal or, if the trust was created to provide for the care of more than one animal alive during the settlor's lifetime, upon the death of the last surviving animal. |
| VA - Vehicle - § 29.1-539. Keeping deer or bear struck by motor vehicle; | Any person driving a motor vehicle who collides with a deer or bear may, upon compliance with relevant provisions, keep the deer or bear for his or her own use. The person shall immediately report the accident to a conservation police officer or other law-enforcement officer. If the officer believes that the deer or bear was killed by the collision, he shall award the animal to the person claiming the deer or bear, and shall give the person a certificate to that effect. |
| VA - Vehicle - § 3.2-6504.1. Civil immunity; forcible entry of motor vehicle to remove unattended companion animal. | This Virginia law was signed by the Governor on April 1, 2016. The law provides that no law-enforcement officer, firefighter, emergency medical services personnel, or animal control officer who in good faith forcibly enters a motor vehicle in order to remove an unattended companion animal that is at risk of serious bodily injury or death shall be liable for any property damage to the vehicle entered or injury to the animal resulting from such forcible entry and removal of the animal, unless such property damage or injury results from gross negligence or willful or wanton misconduct. |
| VA - Veterinarian Issues - Professional Conduct | The following regulation lists what is considered unprofessional conduct by a Virginia veterinarian. Violation of this regulation may result in a refusal to grant or renew a license; or may result in a suspension or revocation of a license, as described in § 54.1-3807(5) of the Code of Virginia. Subsection 14 states that "[f]ailing to report suspected animal cruelty to the appropriate authorities" is unprofessional conduct. |
| VA - Veterinary - Chapter 38. Veterinary Medicine. | 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.\ |
| VALUING WILDLIFE, WILDLIFE-OUR MOST VALUABLE PUBLIC RESOURCE | |
| Van Kleek v. Farmers Insurance Exchange | Plaintiff agreed to watch a couple’s dog while they were out of town. While plaintiff was caring for the dog, the animal bit her on her lower lip. Plaintiff filed a claim with the couple's insurance company. The insurance company rejected the claim because the plaintiff was also "insured," defined to include “any person ... legally responsible” for covered animals, and the policy excluded coverage for bodily injuries to "insureds." Plaintiff filed an action for declaratory judgment against the insurance company, seeking a determination that the policy covered her claim. The insurance company moved for summary judgment, and the district court sustained the insurance company's motion, reasoning that plaintiff was “legally responsible” for the dog because she fed and watered the animal and let it out of the house while the couple was away. The Supreme Court of Nebraska affirmed and held the insurance company was entitled to summary judgment. |
| Vanater v. Village of South Point |
|