|
NJ - Ordinance - Chapter 19. Dogs, Taxation and Liability for Injuries Caused by. |
This New Jersey statute provides that a municipality may by ordinance, fix the sum to be paid annually for a dog license and each renewal thereof, which sum shall be not less than $1.50 nor more than $21.00. The statute also also provides upper and lower limits for three-year licenses. |
|
NJ - Ordinances - Chapter 19. Dogs, Taxation and Liability for Injuries Caused by |
This New Jersey statute provides that the provisions of the dangerous dog act shall supersede any law, ordinance, or regulation concerning vicious or potentially dangerous dogs, any specific breed of dog, or any other type of dog inconsistent with this act enacted by any municipality, county, or county or local board of health. |
|
NJ - Pet Sales - Pet Purchase Protection Act |
This New Jersey Act protects pet purchasers who receive "defective" companion animals. A purchaser of a defective pet must have his or her pet examined by a veterinarian within 14 days of purchase to receive a refund or exchange. Alternatively, a buyer may retain the pet and be reimbursed for veterinary bills up to two times the cost of the dog or cat. |
|
NJ - Pet Trusts - Trusts for care of domesticated animals |
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. Note: this section replaces the original law (3B:11-38) enacted in 2001 and repealed in 2016. |
|
NJ - Research - 18A:3B-85. Use of cats or dogs for educational, research, or scientific purposes; assessment |
The “Homes for Animal Heroes Act" adopted in 2020 states that an institution of higher education that uses cats or dogs for educational, research, or scientific purposes, or a research institution that contracts with an institution of higher education for the use of cats or dogs for educational, research, or scientific purposes, shall require the assessment of the health of a cat or dog and determine whether it is suitable for adoption after the completion of any testing or research involving the cat or dog. If the institution determines that the cat or dog is suitable for adoption, the institution shall offer the cat or dog to an animal rescue organization or private individual for adoption. |
|
NJ - Stone Harbor - Chapter 147: Animals (Article V: Feral Cats) |
This Borough of Stone Harbor feral cat ordinance sets up a Trap, Neuter and Return (TNR) program outside of the area between 111th Street and the southern end of the Borough, as well as outside of the entire Bird Sanctuary and Stone Harbor Point areas. Under this ordinance, any feral cats found within the area between 111th Street and the southern end of the Borough, the Bird Sanctuary, or the Stone Point area must be captured and transported to the County Animal Shelter for handling in accordance with the interlocal agreement between the Borough and the county applicable to such animals. Caregivers, who are uncompensated volunteers, serve to facilitate the TNR program and their duties, as well as potential penalties for not complying with their duties, are indicated within this ordinance.
|
|
NJ - Veterinary - Chapter 16. Veterinary Medicine, Surgery and Dentistry. |
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. |
|
NJ - Wildlife - 23:4-62.2. Bounties or premium for killing prohibition |
This New Jersey statute states that no county or municipality shall hereafter pay any premium or bounty for the killing of any fox or woodchuck. |
|
Pet Dealers Ass'n of New Jersey, Inc. v. Division of Consumer Affairs, Dept. of Law and Public Safety, State of N. J. |
By this appeal Pet Dealers Association of New Jersey, Inc. challenges the validity of the Attorney General's regulations governing the sale of pet cats and dogs adopted pursuant to the Consumer Fraud Act, N.J.S.A. 56:8--4. Pet Dealers first contends that the regulations in question conflict with Article 2 of the Uniform Commercial Code (N.J.S.A. 12A:2--101 Et seq.) in that the regulations provide the consumer with broader remedies than are available under the Code. The court disagreed, finding that the UCC is intended to give stability and certainty to commercial transactions, not to limit otherwise valid exercise of police powers by the State. Appellant also maintains that the regulations create an invalid classification, contrary to the Equal Protection Clause. The court held the regulations are a valid act of police power that does not evince any invidious discrimination the state's part.
|
|
Quesada v. Compassion First Pet Hosps |
In this unpublished case, plaintiff’s cat “Amor” was euthanized after being diagnosed with heart failure disease and saddle thrombus. At the hospital, plaintiff was visibly affected by the death of his cat, who he was allowed to say goodbye to. Plaintiff also talked and sang to Amor’s body until the body was retrieved. Plaintiff was informed that during the procedure Amor had bitten one of the nurses and that state law required a brain tissue sample to rule out rabies. Plaintiff informed the veterinarian of his wish to display Amor's body for viewing prior to cremation in two different instances. Neither the procedure or alternative procedures were explained to the plaintiff. At the body’s viewing, the plaintiff discovered that his cat had been decapitated. Plaintiff became extremely emotional after discovering his cat’s head had been disposed of as medical waste. As a result of the decapitation, plaintiff developed several severe mental health issues. Plaintiff filed a claim alleging negligent infliction of emotional distress, negligence, and bailment. The case was dismissed for Plaintiff’s failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. Plaintiff appealed the decision alleging that the lower court had mistakenly applied the standard of the bystander negligent infliction of emotional distress, instead of a direct liability claim and error in dismissing his remaining negligence and bailment claims. The court agreed with the plaintiff and reversed the dismissal and remanded for further proceedings. On the count of negligent infliction of emotional distress, the court held that plaintiff’s claim did not fall under the "bystander" liability as his severe emotional distress arose after the passing of his cat and upon seeing his cat's decapitated body. Additionally, the court stated that plaintiff’s “emotional reaction combined with the fact that defendant was twice on notice that plaintiff intended to have a viewing of his cat's body prior to cremation established that defendants owed plaintiff a duty.” Defendants breached this duty by being on notice of plaintiff emotional distress and failing to properly inform plaintiff of the typical procedure of decapitating the cat for rabies testing, inform him of alternative testing procedures, and failing to request that the cat's head be returned after decapitation and prior to the showing. Suffering of plaintiff’s illnesses was still to be determined. The court found that the plaintiff “had pleaded a direct claim of negligent infliction of emotional distress sufficient to withstand a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim.” A claim of bailment had also been appropriately pleaded since plaintiff had given defendants control of his cat's body and defendant returned it in a damaged condition. |
