Source: https://www.animallaw.info/topic/table-2014-amendments-state-laws
Timestamp: 2019-04-21 08:51:35+00:00

Document:
This table summarizes the statutory amendments that occurred in 2014. The table gives a brief description of the changes and links to the actual text of the laws.
As was the case with the past few years, many animal-related amendments occurred in states' anti-cruelty laws. The most significant of these was the creation of a felony penalty for certain acts of cruelty in South Dakota. The state had previously been the only state without some sort of felony penalty for animal cruelty. Maryland made docking, cropping, and devocalization of cats and dogs illegal unless done by a veterinarian for reasons as specified in the law.
Dangerous dogs also received some attention by state legislators. West Virginia enacted a set of laws that allows for a private cause of action for the humane destruction of dogs that have attacked people. A new section was added to Utah's code. U.C.A. 1953 § 18-1-4 allows the use of arbitration in personal injury from dog attack cases. There are certain requirements concerning notice to the court and the actual arbitration award may not exceed $50,000. A person who elects arbitration waives the right to obtain a judgment against the personal assets of the defendant and limits him or herself to recovery only against available limits of insurance coverage.
In laws related to service animals and public access, a few states amended their laws to conform to federal definitions for terms. In fact, many of those states simply reference the federal definition under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). New Hampshire joined other states that have criminal laws on misrepresenting a pet as a service animal to gain access with that animal.
The sale of pets was also a popular topic. Minnesota passed a section dedicated to the regulation of commercial dog breeders (defined as a person who possesses/owns and is engaged in the business of breeding animals for sale, and possesses ten or more adult intact animals that produce more than five total litters of puppies or kittens per year). Changes to Connecticut law require that the Commissioner of Agriculture to promulgate regulations on the standards of care for dogs and cats kept by one who keeps ten or more unneutered or unspayed dogs capable of breeding or operates a cattery. A few pet purchaser protection acts were amended in several states giving consumers more time to exercise their remedies by law.
In keeping up with technology, a couple states enacted laws that protect hunters from harassment by unmanned drones (North Carolina and Tennessee). New Jersey added provisions to protect rhinoceros and wildlife with ivory, stating, "The Legislature therefore determines that it is an important public purpose to protect all species of rhinoceros and all species of animals with ivory teeth and tusks by prohibiting the import, sale, purchase, barter, or possession with intent to sell, of any ivory, ivory product, rhinoceros horn, or rhinoceros horn product." New York added a similar law that prohibits the sale, trade, barter, or distribution of ivory article or rhinoceros horn.
The law on abandoned animals was modified. Previously, an animal that was left with a veterinarian, dog kennel, cat kennel, pet-grooming parlor, animal hospital, or any other animal care facility pursuant to a written or oral agreement for more than 14 days after notice to owner (for at least a ten-day period) could be humanely euthanized or turned over to a pound or public animal shelter. The changes allow the abandoned animal to now be turned over to a public animal control agency or shelter, society for the prevention of cruelty to animals shelter, humane society shelter, or nonprofit animal rescue group, provided that the shelter or rescue group has been contacted and has agreed to take the animal. West's Ann. Cal. Civ. Code § 1834.5.
In 2014, California added amendments to its law on "Live Animals" in the Retail Food Code related to pet dogs in outdoor dining areas. If a food establishment owner allows it, patrons may bring their pet dogs to an outdoor dining area if requirements are met. There must be an outdoor entrance, employees must wash hands if they touch the dogs, dogs must be leashed and under control, pet waste must be properly dealt with, and "food and water provided to pet dogs shall only be in single-use disposable containers.
The person with the disability may apply for compensation by the California Victim Compensation and Government Claims Board pursuant to Chapter 5 (commencing with Section 13950) of Part 4 of Division 3 of Title 2 of the Government Code, in an amount not to exceed ten thousand dollars ($10,000).
West's Ann. Cal. Penal Code § 600.2, West's Ann. Cal. Penal Code § 600.5.
The Colorado Pet Animal Care and Facilities Act received several amendments. Under the definitions section, the definition for “dog breeder, small scale operation” or “small scale operation dog breeder” was changed from a fixed number of at least 25 dogs to "more than the number of dogs permitted for a canine hobby breeder facility but no more than ninety-nine dogs per year." C. R. S. A. § 35–80–102. The section on the scope of the article added that "any wildlife sanctuary" is not included under the scope of the act. C. R. S. A. § 35–80–103. In the fees section, the application fee for a pet animal facility license was changed from a maximum of $350 to $700. C. R. S. A. § 35–80–105.
(5)(a) If the commissioner or the commissioner's designee, in the course of an investigation under this article, has reasonable cause to know or suspect that an animal has been subjected to animal cruelty in violation of section 18–9–202, C.R.S., or animal fighting in violation of section 18–9–204, C.R.S., the commissioner or the commissioner's designee shall report or cause a report to be made of the animal cruelty or animal fighting to a local law enforcement agency or the state bureau of animal protection created in section 35–42–105. The commissioner or the commissioner's designee shall not knowingly make a false report.
(b) The mere filing of a complaint does not generate a requirement to report under paragraph (a) of this subsection (5).
(c) A commissioner or a commissioner's designee who willfully violates the provisions of this subsection (5) commits a Class 1 petty offense, punishable as provided in section 18–1.3–503, C.R.S.
(II) In a civil or criminal action brought in connection with the report, the commissioner or the commissioner's designee is presumed to have acted in good faith.
In the case of an entity whose license was revoked under paragraph (b) of subsection (1) of this section, the two-year period of ineligibility also applies to a principal, officer, director, manager, or any other person who has substantial control or authority over the daily operations of the entity, whether he or she applies individually or as a principal, officer, director, manager, or other person who has or would have substantial control or authority over the daily operations of the same or a different entity.
Finally, the sunset provision of the law (previously July 1, 2014) was changed to September 1, 2019. That statutory section also added reporting and other administrative requirements. C. R. S. A. § 35–80–117.
Colorado's laws concerning service animals were greatly modified. A specific definition for "service animal" was added that states the phrase, "has the same meaning as set forth in the implementing regulations of Title II and Title III of the federal “Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990”, 42 U.S.C. sec. 12101 et seq." C. R. S. A. § 24–34–301. Additionally, the chapter on civil rights was amended with regard to damages for civil rights violations (§ 24–34–801). The section on the rights of individuals using service animals was also amended. (§ 24–34–803). The damages for harm or interference to a service animal were changed in 804 from a general proof of "economic loss" to treble damages for actual harm and actual damages for harm to a service animal in training. C. R. S. A. § 24–34–804.
Colorado amended its veterinary practice law to define "preveterinary emergency care." According to the legislative declaration, the amendments were enacted because the personnel of some fire districts were providing life-saving, emergency veterinary care to dogs and cats, which violated the Colorado Veterinary Practice Act. The changes to C. R. S. A. § 12-64-104 allow these emergency responders to provide voluntary life-saving care to pets provided he or she is authorized to do so by his or her employer and has received some training. This must be done in response to another emergency call. The law clearly states that there is no obligation to provide this care.
(2) owns or operates a breeding cattery. Such standard of care shall be consistent with the standard of care to be provided by an animal importer, as prescribed pursuant to subdivision (6) of subsection (e) of section 22-344.
(D) directly or indirectly, has obtained such dog or cat from a breeder described in subdivision (1) of this subsection.
Violators shall be fined not more than $1,000 for each violation with each violation constituting a separate offense. C. G. S. A. § 22-354.
The state's pet purchaser protection laws were amended in 2014. The remedies under Section 22-344b were amended such that a consumer may seek the actual value of veterinary services and medication due to treatment of illness or congenital defect. Previously, the law limited this to $500. However, "such reimbursement shall not exceed (I) the full purchase price of such dog or cat for any dog or cat purchased for five hundred dollars or more, and (II) five hundred dollars for any dog or cat purchased for less than five hundred dollars." Additionally, statutory changes now enable an affected consumer to seek the assistance of the Commissioner of Agriculture in the event that the licensee fails to reimburse such consumer in accordance with the provisions of this subsection. C.G.S.A. § 22-344b.
(c) Each licensee shall post the United States Department of Agriculture inspection from the prior two-year period reports for the breeder of any dog offered for sale in a pet shop. Such inspection reports shall be posted next to or near the cage of each dog that was purchased from the breeder that is the subject of such inspection reports and made available to any patron regardless of whether such patron purchases said dog.
The fine for violating this section was reduced from civil penalty of not more than $500 to now a fine of not more than $250. C.G.S.A. § 22-344b.
Delaware's animal fighting law was amended to allow animals forfeited under the law to be evaluated by a duly incorporated society for the prevention of cruelty to animals, an authorized state agency, or a duly incorporated humane society in charge of animals for eligibility for adoption. Previously, the law stated that forfeited animals must be disposed of in a humane manner. 11 Del.C. § 1326.
Florida added a new law in Chapter 585, Animal Industry. The new provision exempts personal identifying information of a person employed by, under contract with, or volunteering for a public research facility, including a state university, that conducts animal research or is engaged in activities related to animal research from public records disclosure laws. West's F. S. A. § 585.611.
Georgia's main animal cruelty law (Ga. Code Ann., § 16-12-4) was amended in 2014. A new definition for the term "malice" was added.
(B) The wanton and willful doing of an act with an awareness of a plain and strong likelihood that a particular harm may result.
Ga. Code Ann., § 16-12-4(b)(2). Under the revisions, any "prior adjudication of guilt for the offense of cruelty to animals or aggravated cruelty to animals" in any state or territory of the U.S. including those "of any foreign nation recognized by the United States, which would constitute the offense of cruelty" as well as "an adjudication of a juvenile" can be used as the basis for a misdemeanor of a high and aggravated nature. This replaces the former general phrase of "a second or subsequent violation of this subsection which results in the death of an animal." Ga. Code Ann., § 16-12-4(c)(2). Finally, the crime of aggravated cruelty now incorporates the term "maliciously" that was added to the definitional portion of the law.
In § 4-8-23, probate courts were given authority to hear dangerous dog hearings. Additionally, the amendments to that section allow the court to release a suspected impounded dog to an animal shelter or humanely euthanize the dog if the owner cannot be located within ten days of a dog control officer's determination that a dog is subject to classification as a dangerous dog or vicious dog.
E. For the purposes of this Section, when more than one chicken is subject to an act that would constitute cockfighting, each chicken involved shall constitute a separate offense.
F. The provisions of this Section shall not be construed to prohibit the raising of any chicken, rooster, or gamefowl for the purposes of personal enjoyment, exhibition, or agricultural pursuits as long as the purpose of such pursuits are legal.
In 2014, Maryland added some new provisions to its chapter on animal cruelty. Section 10-624 prohibits a person from cropping the ears of a dog, docking or cutting the tail of a dog, cutting off the dewclaw of a dog, or surgically birthing a dog. Those procedures may only be performed under by a licensed veterinarian using anesthesia when appropriate on the animal. Violation is a misdemeanor. MD Code, Criminal Law, § 10-624. Additionally, the state passed a law that prohibits dog or cat devocalizing except by a licensed veterinary when it is medically necessary. MD Code, Criminal Law, § 10-625.
However, except as provided, the holder of a Class C Exhibitor's License under the Animal Welfare Act, 7 U.S.C. § 2131 et seq., may not possess a nonhuman primate, bear, lion, tiger, leopard, clouded leopard, snow leopard, jaguar, cheetah, or cougar or a hybrid of one of these animals that was not owned by the holder of the license on June 30, 2014.
MD Code, Criminal Law, § 621.
A veterinarian who, while in the normal course of business, observes an animal whom such veterinarian knows or reasonably suspects has been the victim of animal cruelty prohibited under sections 77 or 94 of chapter 272 shall report said suspected animal cruelty to a police officer or special state police officer appointed under section 57 of chapter 22C.
M.G.L.A. 112 § 58B. The immunity from civil and criminal liability remains the same in the law.
Minnesota enacted the Commercial Breeders Act in 2014. “Commercial breeder” means a person who possesses/owns and is engaged in the business of breeding animals for sale; possesses 10 or more adult intact animals and whose animals produce more than 5 total litters of puppies or kittens per year.
Beginning July 1, 2015, a commercial breeder must obtain an annual license for each facility it owns or operates. The initial prelicense inspection fee and the annual license fee is $10 per adult intact animal, but each fee must not exceed $250.
The board must perform an announced initial prelicense inspection within 60 days from the date of receiving a license application. Additionally, the board must inspect each licensed facility at least annually.
There are standards of care provided in the new law.
M. S. A. § 347.57 to 64.
Minnesota enacted a new law concerning research cats and dogs. A higher education research facility that receives public money or a facility that provides research in collaboration with a higher education facility that confines dogs or cats for science, education, or research purposes and plans on euthanizing a dog or cat for other than science, education, or research purposes must first offer the dog or cat to an animal rescue organization.
(b) The commissioner shall compile a list that is updated quarterly on known wolf deaths, based on reporting by conservation officers. The list must specify the date and location of each wolf death and must be available on the department Web site.
A person who unlawfully takes, transports, or possesses a wolf in violation of the game and fish laws, and has one or more prior convictions involving the taking of wolves, is liable for a civil penalty equal to the restitution value for the wolf.
M. S. A. § 97B.648.
In 2014, Mississippi became the 49th state to add a "pet trust" law. The law allows a trust to 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 (1) animal alive during the settlor's lifetime, upon the death of the last surviving animal.
Birds were deleted from the list of animals that required a health certificate in N.H. Rev. Stat. § 437:10 (the law now just says dog, cat, or ferret).
IV. It is unlawful for any person to represent that such person has a disability or is a service animal trainer for the purpose of acquiring a service animal unless said person has a disability or is a service animal trainer and to impersonate, by word or action, a person with a disability for the purpose of receiving service dog accommodations or service animal accessories such as a collar, leash, vest, sign, harness, or service animal tag, which represents that the animal is a service animal or to acquire a service animal tag issued under RSA 466:8.
N.H. Rev. Stat. § 167-D:8. Additionally, the penalties under the chapter were clarified. Willfully injuring a service animal is now a Class A misdemeanor with restitution required. N.H. Rev. Stat. § 167-D:10.
In recognition of the service given by the dogs who, night and day, serve the people of this country and the state, and inviting the governments, communities, and people of this state to observe such day with appropriate ceremonies and activities, the governor shall proclaim March 13th of each year as Canine Veterans Day in honor of the dogs who have bled, suffered, and died while serving in all of our wars and those still serving; as well as police canine units, customs canine units, border patrol canine units, secret service canine units, search and rescue canine units, airport police canine units, federal bureau of investigation canine units, and the local police and fire canine units who protect our neighborhoods should be honored accordingly.
The Legislature therefore determines that it is an important public purpose to protect all species of rhinoceros and all species of animals with ivory teeth and tusks by prohibiting the import, sale, purchase, barter, or possession with intent to sell, of any ivory, ivory product, rhinoceros horn, or rhinoceros horn product.
(2) for a second or subsequent offense, a crime of the fourth degree and, notwithstanding the provisions of N.J.S.2C:43-3, shall be fined not less than $5,000 or an amount equal to two times the total value of the ivory, ivory products, rhinoceros horn, and rhinoceros horn products involved in the offense, whichever is greater.
N. J. S. A. 23:2A-13.4.
The section that used to be called "dog stealing" was changed to "companion animal" stealing to include more species. McKinney's Agriculture and Markets Law § 366.
. . . if, within one hundred eighty calendar days following such sale or receipt, whichever occurred last, a licensed veterinarian certifies such animal to be unfit for purchase due to a congenital malformation which adversely affects the health of the animal . . .
the consumer has the right to the listed options. Previously, this was just included in the same part of the 10-day time limit for both illnesses and congenital defects. McKinney's General Business Law § 753.
The amendments also added cats to the pets covered (that law states that "[w]ithin five business days of receipt, but prior to the sale of any dog or cat, the pet dealer shall have a duly licensed veterinarian conduct an examination and tests appropriate to the breed and age to determine if the animal has any medical conditions apparent at the time of the examination that adversely affect the health of the animal.") McKinney's General Business Law § 753-a.
New York added a new law that allows an agency to deny access to records concerning biomedical research or biomedical teaching conducted at an institution of higher education authorized by the state education department that, if disclosed, could endanger the life or safety of any person or would be reasonably likely to endanger the security of such biomedical research laboratory. McKinney's Public Health Law § 506.
The state added a new law that prohibits the sale, trade, barter, or distribution of ivory article or rhinoceros horn. Permits can be issued, if not in violation of federal law, for antiques, historical musical instruments, and educational/scientific research. McKinney's ECL § 11-0535-a.
Under the care and housing requirements law for the chapter entitled, "Dangerous Wild Animals and Restricted Snakes," specific care and enclosure requirements were added for snakes. Individuals who have been issued restricted snake possession or restricted snake propagation permits under this chapter must follow very specific requirements concerning light, temperature regulation, substrate, and enclosures. R.C. § 935.12.
The law that prohibits the torture of law enforcement dogs was amended to change the penalty from a third degree felony to a second degree felony. 3 P.S. § 459-602.
The state added a new section to its cruelty chapter. The law allows the director of environmental management, or any veterinarian employed by the department of environmental management, to lawfully take charge of any animal found abandoned or neglected or that is sick or otherwise requires care. Every owner, guardian, or agent, upon conviction who enters a plea of cruelty or nolo contendre for a cruelty or abandonment conviction forfeits the right to ownership or control of that animal to the department. That owner, guardian, or agent is responsible for reasonable expenses for the care and treatment of the animal(s) while in the custody of the department. Further, the department has the authority to commence a civil action for damages against the owner or his or her agent 30 days after written demand for payment. Gen. Laws, 1956, § 4-1-42.
The state added a new section that prohibits local governments from enacting, maintaining, or enforcing any ordinance, policy, resolution, or other enactment that is specific as to the breed or perceived breed of a dog. However, the section does not impair the right of any local government unit to enact, maintain, or enforce any form of regulation that applies to all dogs. S D C L § 40-34-16.
No person owning or responsible for the care of an animal may neglect, abandon, or mistreat the animal. A violation of this section is a Class 1 misdemeanor.
The section defining a "dangerous animal" (§ 40–1–2.5) was repealed since the definition itself was transferred to § 40–1–1 as was the case with § 40–1–2.6 for "proper enclosure."
It is a Class 1 misdemeanor to be present at any violation of subdivision (2) of this section as a spectator.
The exceptions to the cruelty provisions were expanded and clarified in § 40–1–17, with a new addition related to exceptions for the "humane killing" of animals.
The state's "hunter harassment" provision was amended to add a definition for a drone and language that prohibits a person who "[u]ses a drone with the intent to conduct video surveillance of private citizens who are lawfully hunting or fishing without obtaining the written consent of the persons being surveilled prior to conducting the surveillance." T. C. A. § 70-4-302.
Several section of Texas law were amended with respect to service animals.
Sections 121.002 of the Human Resources Code was amended such that the definition of "assistance animal" added the term "service animal." The new definition limits those terms to a canine that is specially trained to help a person with a disability and that is used by a person with a disability. The second part (former B, providing "has been trained by an organization generally recognized by agencies involved in the rehabilitation of persons with disabilities as reputable and competent to provide animals with training of this type.") was removed. This aligns more closely with the federal Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) regulations. Additionally, that same section added to its definition for "person with a disability" the phrases "intellectual or developmental disability" and "post-traumatic stress disorder." V. T. C. A., Human Resources Code § 121.002.
(2) what type of work or task the service animal is trained to perform.
V. T. C. A., Human Resources Code § 121.002.
V. T. C. A., Human Resources Code § 121.004. This same paragraph was also added to the penalty part of the law that prohibits fraudulent representation of a pet as a service animal. V. T. C. A., Human Resources Code § 121.006. Finally, under Section 121.008 concerning the awareness of persons with disabilities, the governor must "issue a proclamation each year taking suitable public notice of October 15 as White Cane Safety and Service Animal Recognition Day." The amendments added the service animal portion and makes it a mandatory requirement. V. T. C. A., Human Resources Code § 121.008.
(2) the service animal is in training and is accompanied and controlled by an approved trainer.
Again, the new law mirrors the federal law in terms of what inquiry can be made and how a service animal is defined. Interestingly, the law makes explicitly clear that "[a]n animal that provides only comfort or emotional support to a person is not a service animal under this section." V. T. C. A., Health & Safety Code § 437.023.
U.C.A. 1953 § 18-1-4 A new section was added to Utah's code. U.C.A. 1953 § 18-1-4 allows the use of arbitration in personal injury from dog attack cases. There are certain requirements concerning notice to the court and the actual arbitration award may not exceed $50,000. A person who elects arbitration waives the right to obtain a judgment against the personal assets of the defendant and limits him or herself to recovery only against available limits of insurance coverage. The section details the time limits for election and rescinding election as well as how the process is conducted.
(3) No testimony or other information presented by the defendant in connection with a forfeiture proceeding under this section or any information directly or indirectly derived from such testimony or other information may be used for any purpose, including impeachment and cross-examination, against the defendant in any criminal case, except a prosecution for perjury or giving a false statement.
The compensation available by law for livestock killed by dogs was increased from $400 to a maximum fair market value of $750. VA Code Ann. § 3.2-6553.
Any person may, in accordance with all applicable federal and state laws, possess, breed, sell, and transport any nonnative wildlife included on any list of threatened or endangered species published by the United States Secretary of the Interior pursuant to provisions of the federal Endangered Species Act of 1973 (P.L. 93–205), as amended, when (i) the federal designation does not specifically prohibit such possession, breeding, selling, or transporting and (ii) the nonnative wildlife is not included on the list of predatory or undesirable animals specified by regulations of the Board adopted pursuant to § 29.1–542.
VA Code Ann. § 29.1-568.
The wildlife section that outlines unlawful hunting activities was amended to make it unlawful " . . . to hunt or kill any deer or bear with a gun, firearm, or other weapon with the aid or assistance of dogs, on Sunday." VA Code Ann. § 29.1-521.
Va. Code Ann. § 3.2-6582 was amended allowing municipalities to create ordinances dealing with hybrid canines. The compensation for livestock killed by a hybrid canine was increased from $400 to $750. Va. Code Ann. § 3.2-6584.
VA Code Ann. § 3.2-6512. Additionally, the remedies and timeframe under the Act were amended. Previously, the law had a limitation to "an animal described as being registered or capable of being registered with any animal pedigree organization and subject to this chapter." That language was removed. The previous version also had a 10 day time period for both congenital defects and an infectious disease. That time limitation was expanded to 14 "following the receipt of an animal a licensed veterinarian certifies such animal to be unfit for purchase due to being infected with parvovirus."
VA Code Ann. § 3.2-6514.
The next statutory section on notice to the consumer(§ 3.2–6515) was amended to include those changes above.
Virginia added a definition for "service animal" in VA Code Ann. § 51.5-40.1 that reflects the federal definition in the regulations under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). Before this addition, the state had only included a definition for "hearing dog" in the section.
Nothing in this chapter shall prohibit persons permitted or authorized by the Department of Game and Inland Fisheries to do so from providing care for wildlife as defined in § 29.1-100, provided that the Department determines that such persons are in compliance with its regulations and permit conditions.
Va. Code Ann. § 54.1-3800.
West Virginia added a new subchapter (20d) entitled, "Private Cause of Action for the Humane Destruction of a Dog." According to the purpose of the law, its aim is ". . . to protect the public by providing a private cause of action seeking euthanasia of a dog in magistrate court to a person who has been attacked by a dog resulting in personal injuries requiring medical treatment which cost $2,000 or more, or who has been attacked by the dog and the dog had attacked a person causing personal injury which required medical treatment within the previous twelve months." W. Va. Code, § 19-20D-1. The following section outlines the procedure and notice requirements for commencing an action. Notably, the section requires proof of the allegations in the petition by clear and convincing evidence. W. Va. Code, § 19-20D-2. The final part requires that the magistrate set forth a written order detailing his or her findings of fact and conclusions of law. W. Va. Code, § 19-20D-3.
The State of West Virginia found the possession of dangerous wild animals to present a serious public health and safety concern. Because of this, the state prohibits a person from possessing a dangerous wild animal unless the animal was owned prior to June 1, 2015 and the owner obtained a permit. Under this statute, a “Dangerous wild animal” means a mammal, bird, reptile, amphibian or aquatic animal, including a hybrid that is dangerous to humans, other animals or the environment due to its inherent nature and capability to do significant harm. W. Va. Code, § 19-34-1 to 9.
(p) “Assistance animal” means any service, therapy or support animal, weighing less than one hundred fifty pounds, with or without specific training or certification, that works, provides assistance, or performs tasks for the benefit of a person with a disability, or provides emotional support that alleviate one or more identified symptoms or effects of a person's disability.

References: § 18
 § 1834
 § 600
 § 600
 § 35
 § 35
 § 35
 § 35
 § 24
 § 24
 § 12
 § 22
 § 22
 § 22
 § 1326
 § 585
 § 16
 § 16
 § 16
 § 4
 § 10
 § 10
 § 2131
 § 621
 § 58
 § 347
 § 97
 § 437
 § 167
 § 167
 § 366
 § 753
 § 753
 § 506
 § 11
 § 935
 § 459
 § 4
 § 40
 § 40
 § 40
 § 40
 § 70
 V. 
 § 121

V. 
 § 121

V. 
 § 121
 V. 
 § 121
 V. 
 § 121
 V. 
 § 437
 § 18
 § 18
 § 3
 § 29
 § 29
 § 29
 § 3
 § 3
 § 3
 § 3
 § 51
 § 29
 § 54
 § 19
 § 19
 § 19
 § 19