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

July/August News

Is lab-grown meat the answer to factory farming concerns? Amidst the debate on the ethics of animal agriculture and factory farmed animal products, some have looked towards the solution of lab-grown meat in order to ethically grow meat and other animal products for human consumption. The practice of growing lab grown or cultured meat involves taking stem cells from a living donor animal, then growing those cells into a consumable meat product either in vitro or through some other means for multiplying the stem cells. Proponents argue that the practice should be encouraged, as it has the potential to cut down greenhouse gas emissions caused by traditional animal agriculture, reduce water consumption required to produce animal products, reduce the need for farming space, and poses an ethical solution to the issue of the lack of animal welfare in traditional factory farming operations. However, this recent technological innovation has encountered some pushback in the American legal system, including measures by the states of Florida and Alabama. Read more on how legal concerns are developing.

Vermont joins growing list of states banning retail sale of dogs and cats in pet stores. Beginning July 1, 2024, the retail sale of dogs, cats, and wolf-hybrids by a pet shop will be banned in the state of Vermont via S. 301 (codified as 20 V.S.A. § 3931). Vermont joins several other states that previously passed such legislation including California, Colorado, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, New York, Oregon and Washington. The laws are aimed at the sale of dogs sourced from “puppy mills,” effectively eliminating what has been called the “pipeline” of dogs from substandard commercial breeding facilities with little oversight to unsuspecting pet buyers. In addition to state laws, hundreds of cities across the country have enacted such bans.

Increasing numbers of "feral pigs" raise issues with endangered species in Texas. Texas has been a hotspot for booming populations of feral pigs fueled by intentional introduction for hunting last century. According to the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS), feral pigs or swine are "are descendants of escaped or released pigs first brought to the United States by Europeans as a food source. They are a dangerous and destructive invasive species, and their populations have expanded across the country." Recently, feral pigs have increased in Padre Island National Seashore or "PINS," a 66-mile wild coastline along the Gulf of Mexico. The feral pigs have begun to dig up turtle nests and have the potential to harm endangered species like Kemps ridley, loggerheads and other turtles. The National Park Service is seeking public comment for ideas on how to manage the feral pig/endangered species conflict at PINS until August 4th. Unfortunately, animals can be designated as "invasive" through no fault of their own, causing extensive damage to native species in the same ecosystem. Learn more about animal welfare issues involving invasive species here.

News archives

Cases

Animal welfare organization NOT exempt from Delaware's strict liability dog bite law. Riad v. Brandywine Valley SPCA, Inc., --- A.3d ----, 2024 WL 2885283 (Del. June 10, 2024). In 2019, Plaintiff was bitten by a dog while at a facility operated by Brandywine Valley SPCA (“BVSPCA”), a non-profit animal welfare organization that takes in stray or surrendered animals and offers some of those animals for adoption. The Superior Court entered summary judgment in favor of the organization and the plaintiff appealed. The primary question on appeal is whether an animal welfare organization is exempt from strict liability under the statute. Here, the Delaware Supreme Court found that reliance misguided as the statutory text contains only limited exceptions and a clear definition of the word "owner." The Court found that it "inappropriate for the Superior Court to engage in a speculative inquiry into the General Assembly's intentions at the time of the dog bite statute's enactment." The Court was not persuaded by BVSPCA's suggestion that the separation of definitions for "animal shelter" and "owner" implied that the term owner does not include animal shelter. The plain language of the statute does not exempt an animal welfare organization from the definition for owner. In addition, BVSPCA's argument that this interpretation disfavors public policy was also rejected by the Court since the statute is unambiguous. Finally, the Court held that, contrary to BVSPCA's assertions, expert witness testimony was not required by law to establish the degree of care a reasonably prudent person must exercise in controlling an aggressive dog. The Superior Court's entry of summary judgment was reversed.

NYC local law prohibiting sale of foie gras and other force-fed products conflicts with state law protecting agricultural districts. City of New York v. Ball, --- N.Y.S.3d ----, 2024 WL 3078319 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. June 21, 2024). This New York case concerns a challenge to the New York City Local Law No. 2019/202 that prohibits restaurants and retail food establishments within the City of New York from selling or serving foie gras and other force-fed products. Petitioner City of New York challenges the final determination of respondents Richard A. Ball, as Commissioner of Agriculture and Markets, and the Department of Agriculture and Markets, which found that Local Law 202 unreasonably restricts and regulates farming operations within the agricultural districts where foie gras is produced, contrary to Agriculture and Markets Law (“AML”) § 305-a. The City argued that Local Law 202 does not impact AML § 305-a because it does not have a direct impact on the farms that produce the foie gras in the agricultural district in the county where it is produced. This court found that a restriction on processes used within farm operations of agricultural districts fits within the purview of the statute. While New York has adopted broad home-rule powers, their scope is limited to regulation in the territorial boundaries. The measure falls within the scope of AML § 305-a as a “local law” that “restrict[s] or regulate[s] farm operations in agricultural districts." While the City has a legitimate desire to protect animals from a cruel practice, it cannot do so in a manner that is inconsistent with state law. The court noted that the state legislature is free to "recalibrate" the statutory construction of AML § 305-a to allow animal welfare concerns, but, in its current form, that would be inconsistent with the language. The motions of intervenors were dismissed, the Petition was denied in all respects, and the proceeding was dismissed.

County not liable for dog bite because animal control officer's decisions on previous violations were discretionary and thus subject to immunity. Danielson v. Cnty. of Humboldt, --- Cal.Rptr.3d ----, 2024 WL 3175240 (Cal. Ct. App. June 26, 2024). Appellant Candis Danielson was seriously injured by dogs owned by Donald Mehrtens on his property. The injuries were so severe that she lost the lower half of her right leg and sustained damage to her other leg and hand. She filed this action for damages against numerous parties, including Mehrtens and the County of Humboldt (Humboldt County or County). The County demurred. This appeal concerns solely the cause of action against the County for its alleged failure to perform a mandatory duty. This court first noted the record demonstrated Mehrtens had at least five different incidents over more than ten years that involved either an attack by his dogs or a report to animal control (including reports on biting, failure to license, and failure to vaccinate). This court found that the Government Claims Act provides immunity to public entities and employees for legislative action or discretionary law enforcement activity as opposed to mandatory duties. Here, the county ordinance did not impose a mandatory duty for the officer to petition for a hearing after one of Mehrtens' dogs had bitten a neighbor months earlier. In addition, the officer did not have a mandatory duty to impound the dogs due for licensing and rabies vaccination concerns. Finally, the dangerous dog ordinances also did not mandate seizing or impounding the dogs. While the court "sympathize[d] with her desire to be compensated for her injuries," the failure to identify a law that created "a mandatory duty which was breached by the County" does not exist here. The lower court was affirmed.

Case Archives