Iowa

Displaying 41 - 50 of 59
Titlesort descending Summary
IA - Trusts for Pets - Chapter 633A. Iowa Trust Code. This Iowa statute allows for the creation of a trust for the continuing care of animal living at the settlor's death (note that actual text does not state "domestic" or "pet" animal). This type of trust, allowed generally through the provisions for lawful noncharitable trusts, is valid for up to twenty-one years, whether or not the terms of the trust contemplates a longer duration. The trust terminates when when no living animal is covered by its terms.
IA - Veterinary - Veterinary Practice Code 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.
IA - Veterinary Liens - Chapter 581. Veterinarian's Lien This section of Iowa laws relates to veterinary liens related to treatment of livestock. A veterinarian shall have an agricultural lien as provided in section 554.9102 for the actual and reasonable value of treating livestock, including the cost of any product used and the actual and reasonable value of any professional service rendered by the veterinarian. In order to perfect the lien, the veterinarian must file a financing statement in the office of the secretary of state as provided. “Livestock” means an animal belonging to the bovine, caprine, equine, ovine, or porcine species, ostriches, rheas, emus, poultry, or fish or shellfish.
In re Marriage of Berger and Ognibene-Berger Joe Berger appeals from the provisions of the decree of divorce from Cira Berger, including the court’s grant of Max, the family golden retriever, to Cira. He argues that it would be more equitable to grant him ownership of Max because Cira already owns another dog, Sophie, and the parties’ son, who lives with Joe, is very attached to Max. The district court made their decision based on which party would be more available to care for the dog. This court affirms that decision, citing evidence that Max is licensed to Cira, only Cira’s name is in the dog’s ‘GEO tracker’ device, and Cira got Max medical attention even when Max was in Joe’s care. The court specified that they need not determine a pet's best interests when deciding custody.
In re Marriage of Stewart


Dog which had been gift from husband to wife was awarded to husband in divorce decree; wife appealed.  Appeals court found that the trial court did not err, considering both "the property division as a whole" and that the dog had accompanied husband to work each day.  Court held that a dog is personal property whose best interests need not be considered.
Investigation of Maquoketa's Pit Bull Ban Ordinance and Enforcement
Kent v. Polk County Board of Supervisors


The Iowa Supreme Court held that a county ordinance regulating possession of dangerous and vicious animals did not violate the due process, equal protection, or takings clauses of the Constitution (in this instance, appellant was the owner of a lion). The regulation was a legitimate exercise of police power, which was rationally related to the legitimate government interest of protecting public safety.
Klobnak v. Wildwood Hills, Inc.


Plaintiffs brought suit against a ranch after their car struck two of the ranch's horses on the highway.  The trial court dismissed holding no duty of care was breached by the ranch because Iowa no longer had a statute prohibiting animals from roaming.  The Supreme Court of Iowa reversed reasoning that a duty of ordinary care still exists.
Kuehl v. Cass County

The issue before the Iowa Supreme Court was whether hog confinement buildings could be considered “agricultural” so as to fall within the state's agricultural zoning exemption. The court held that h

og confinement buildings were within the agricultural building exemption and thus exempt from county zoning regulations.
Larsen v. McDonald In this case twelve neighbors brought a private nuisance claim against another neighbor for keeping numerous dogs in a residential area. Mr. and Mrs. McDonald rescued unwanted dogs by keeping them on their property; Ms. McDonald provided food and shelter and attempted to place the animals in new adoptive homes. At the time of trial there were 40 dogs on the property. The neighbors had called the police and complained of frequent barking and the smell of urine. The McDonalds argue that they had priority of location over the defendants. When they moved to the neighborhood in 1952 it had been sparsely settled. However, over the years the neighborhood had become residential, and while many of the neighbors also had dogs, none of them exceeded three dogs. Ultimately the court held that for the McDonalds to be operating a shelter or kennel style facility was inconsistent with the character of the neighborhood, and after reviewing the testimony, the evidence in this case was sufficient to show a normal person would find the situation was a nuisance. The court upheld the lower court’s injunction to limit the number of dogs that the McDonalds could keep.

Pages