Animal Law Legal Center home page

Animal Legal and Historical Center Website

On this site you will find a comprehensive repository of information about animal law, including: over 1200 full text cases (US, historical, and UK), over 1400 US statutes, over 60 topics and comprehensive explanations, legal articles on a variety of animal topics and an international collection.

Read more about Animal Legal and Historical Center Website

May News

Georgia enacts legislation addressing growing problem of roadside or "swap meet" sales of companion animals. On May 9, 2025, Georgia Governor Brian Kemp signed HB 331 into law. This law makes it illegal to transfer any dog, cat, or domestic rabbit at any roadside, public right of way, parkway, median, public or commercial parking lot or sidewalk, park, recreation area, fair, transient or seasonal flea market, or a similar transient market or outdoor location. Violation incurs a fine of $100.00 for a first offense, graduating to $500 for a third or subsequent offense. Georgia now joins several other states prohibiting such transactions like CA, IL, NE, NV, and VA. The purpose of these laws is to address sales of companion animals from unregulated mass breeders ("puppy mills") and ensure that puppies have proper care prior to transfer. Learn more about "swap meet" sales.

Washington becomes latest state to ban certain animals from traveling animal shows. On April 22nd, Gov. Bob Ferguson signed SB 5065 into law, which prohibits the use of "covered animals" in traveling animal acts like circuses and traveling exhibits. Covered animals include nonhuman primates, elephants, bears, and big cats. Washington now joins at least ten states with such laws. Last May, Maryland Governor Wes Moore signed SB 547/HB 379 into law, which prohibits the use of elephants, big cats, bears, and nonhuman primates in traveling shows and circuses in the state. In August 2024, Massachusetts Gov. Maura Healey signed H 4915 into law, prohibiting the use of big cats, bears, elephants, non-human primates, and also giraffes. In addition to these laws, several other states ban the use of cruel training methods on elephants. See all the laws in our Map.

Missouri seeks to expand “cross-reporting” law to help both animal and domestic violence victims. Cross-reporting laws are laws that either require or allow certain agency professionals to report suspected incidents of cruelty or neglect to other agencies, even if the underlying event falls under a different agency’s jurisdiction. In the context of animal law, this means that a child protective worker could report suspected animal abuse to animal control or animal control could report suspected child abuse or neglect to protective services. About 15 U.S. and D.C. have laws that permit or mandate cross-reporting of abuse. According to a recent article out of Missouri, HB 1298 seeks to add animal control officers and humane investigators to the list of mandatory reporters for child or elder abuse. Not only is animal abuse seen as a “predictor crime” for human violence, but animal control officers have ten times the contact with the public compared to law enforcement officers. Curious to learn more about the importance of cross-reporting laws? Check out our Topic Introduction.

News archives

Cases

NY overturns state's "one bite" rule for dog bites. Flanders v. Goodfellow, --- N.E.3d ----, 2025 WL 1127772 (N.Y. Apr. 17, 2025). This landmark decision fundamentally reshapes New York's dog bite jurisprudence by overturning Bard v. Jahnke and reinstating negligence as a viable cause of action for injuries caused by domestic animals. The Court held that Bard's strict liability framework, which required proof of an owner's actual or constructive knowledge of a dog's vicious propensities, created an unfair exception to ordinary tort principles and had proven unworkable in practice. Recognizing that most jurisdictions permit negligence claims under Restatement (Second) of Torts §§ 509 and 518, the Court established a dual-path system: plaintiffs may now pursue either strict liability (if vicious propensities are shown) or traditional negligence claims against animal owners. The decision also reversed summary judgment on plaintiff's strict liability claim, finding triable issues regarding whether defendants should have known of their dog's aggressive tendencies based on postal workers' affidavits describing the animal's repeated violent window-banging behavior.

Challenge to retail pet sale ordinance dismissed as moot, but Ark. Supreme Court suggests such a local animal protection law does not infringe on other state animal laws. Boyle Ventures, LLC v. City of Fayetteville, --- S.W.3d ----, 2025 Ark. 71 (Ark., 2025). This case involved a constitutional challenge to a Fayetteville ordinance that would have prohibited pet stores from selling dogs and cats unless obtained from approved shelters or rescues. The plaintiff pet store operator argued the ordinance violated both the Arkansas Retail Pet Store Consumer Protection Act and Working Animal Protection Act. The Arkansas Supreme Court held the case was moot since the ordinance was repealed before taking effect, but clarified in dicta that the city's authority to prevent animal cruelty under Ark. Code Ann. § 14-54-103 does not extend to passing ordinances that conflict with state laws protecting lawful animal enterprises. The court reversed the circuit court's finding that the ordinance violated state law and remanded with instructions to dismiss, while dismissing the direct appeal as moot. Justice Womack criticized the majority for conflating statutory immunity with federal qualified immunity and urged remand for a factual determination on whether the City had liability insurance, which would nullify immunity.

In unpublished opinion, NY court awards damages to plaintiff for puppy sold by merchant that was infected with parvo. Padgett v. Winslow, Slip Copy, 86 Misc.3d 1208(A), 2025 WL 1571772 (Table) (N.Y. City Ct. 2025). This case involves plaintiffs seeking reimbursement for veterinary expenses after purchasing a Yorkshire Terrier puppy ("Bentley") that exhibited severe illness symptoms, including lethargy and repeated dark brown vomiting, just four days after purchase from defendant's pet store. The puppy was eventually diagnosed with Parvovirus at Cornell University Hospital for Animals, requiring intensive treatment. The court found plaintiffs established by preponderance of evidence that Bentley was infected at time of sale, noting the puppy's excessive sleeping from day one and subsequent critical condition, while rejecting defendant's 3-4 day incubation period arguments as inconsistent with veterinary evidence showing 7-day symptom onset. While denying promissory estoppel claims for lack of detrimental reliance, the court awarded damages under UCC theories, emphasizing the highly contagious nature of Parvovirus and finding defendant's 48-hour return policy unconscionable under UCC § 2-719(3) as applied to defective goods. The court awarded plaintiffs judgment in the amount of $3,878.29 for veterinary expenses plus court costs against defendants Melissa Winslow and Melrose Pet Palace.

NC court finds Protection of Animals Act (PAA) exempts commercial poultry operation from cruelty actions. Legal Impact for Chickens v. Case Farms, L.L.C., --- S.E.2d ----, 2025 WL 1450006 (N.C. Ct. App. May 21, 2025). This case examined whether Defendants' commercial poultry operations—including hatching, transporting, and slaughtering chickens—fell under exemptions in North Carolina's Protection of Animals Act (PAA). Plaintiff, an animal advocacy group, alleged Defendants subjected chickens to cruel treatment, such as starvation, crushing, overheating, and boiling alive, violating the PAA's prohibition on unjustifiable suffering. The appellate court affirmed dismissal, holding that the PAA's exemptions for "lawful activities conducted for the production of poultry" and "providing food for human or animal consumption" shielded Defendants' entire operation, not just isolated steps in the process. The court rejected Plaintiff's argument that each stage of production should be scrutinized individually, ruling instead that the statute's plain language protected lawful commercial farming as a whole. Because Plaintiff failed to allege Defendants' overarching business was unlawful, the court upheld the dismissal, thereby reinforcing agricultural exemptions in animal cruelty statutes and affirming the trial court's order.

Case Archives