Results
Title |
Author | Citation | Alternate Citation | Summary | Type |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Chart of State Dogfighting Laws | Hanna Gibson | Animal Legal & Historical Center |
This chart, updated in 2014, lists the state laws concerning dog fighting. To date, all states have enacted laws that make actively participating in dog fighting a felony. Several states still regard being a spectator at a fight as a misdemeanor. |
Article | |
| Chartered Institute of Environmental Health Guidance on the Interpretation of the Pet Animals Act 1951 | Chartered Institute of Environmental Health | Chartered Institute of Environmental Health |
Guidance to local authorities from the Chartered Institute of Environmental Health on the interpretation of the Pet Animals Act 1951 and, in particular, the legality of temporary pet fairs |
Article | |
| Charting the Growth of Animal Law in Education | Peter Sankoff | 4 Journal of Animal Law 105 (2008) |
Although the extent to which the animal law movement has succeeded in generating meaningful change for animals remains a subject of debate, one thing about the movement cannot be disputed: it is growing at a remarkable pace, both in the United States and abroad. For one thing, there are more people working as animal lawyers and studying to earn this informal classification than ever before. Where twenty years ago individuals practicing or trying to acquire knowledge in this area operated in isolation, today's enthusiast can attend animal law conferences, participate in moot court simulations and chat with like-minded individuals on animal law related websites. Most importantly, for the student undertaking the study of law in 2008, there now exists a very strong possibility that the institution they attend offers a course in animal law or will do so in the near future. |
Article | |
| Chase v. State | 448 S.W.3d 6 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014) | 2014 WL 6478511 (Tex. Crim. App. Nov. 19, 2014) | Appellant and his wife were walking their two dogs when two neighbor dogs attacked the group. After the attack, appellant slashed the attacking dog's throat with a knife, which resulted in the dog's death. Appellant was then charged with and convicted of cruelty to non-livestock animals under Texas law. The appellant appealed to the Texas Court of Appeals and the case was reversed and remanded. The State filed a petition for discretionary review with the Court of Criminal Appeals. The issue before that court was whether § 822.013(a) of the Texas Health and Safety Code, a non-penal code, provided a defense to criminal prosecution. The court held that § 822.013(a)—which allows an attacked animal's owner or a person witnessing an attack to kill a dog that is attacking, is about to attack, or has recently attacked a domestic animal—is a defense against cruelty to non-livestock animals. The judgment of the Court of Appeals was therefore affirmed. The dissenting opinion disagreed. The dissent argued the goal of this statute was to protect farmers and ranchers against the loss of their livelihood by allowing them to protect their livestock from attacking dogs without fear of liability to the dog's owner, not to allow individuals in residential neighborhoods to kill a neighbor's dog after an attack with criminal impunity. | Case | |
| Chavez v. Aber | 122 F. Supp. 3d 581 (W.D. Tex. 2015) | 2015 WL 4724807 (W.D. Tex., 2015) | Plaintiffs sought damages stemming from Defendants' refusal to accommodate Plaintiffs’ minor son's mental health disabilities by allowing Plaintiffs to keep a mixed-breed pit bull as an emotional support animal in their rented duplex. Plaintiffs asserted (1) housing discrimination under the Federal Housing Act (“FHA”), (2) unlawful retaliation under the FHA, (3) discrimination under the Texas Fair Housing Act (“TFHA”), and (4) unlawful retaliation under § 92.331 of the Texas Property Code. Defendants filed the Motion, seeking dismissal of the Complaint pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6). The court found Plaintiffs had adequately pleaded all claims and denied the Defendant’s motion to dismiss. | Case | |
| Chee v. Amanda Goldt Property Management | 50 Cal.Rptr.3d 40 (Cal.App. 1 Dist., 2006), | 2006 WL 2940764 (Cal.App. 1 Dist.), 43 Cal.App.4th 1360 | Plaintiff, Lila Chee, a resident and owner of a condominium unit, appealed from a judgment entered in favor of all defendants on her complaint seeking damages for personal injuries she suffered when a dog belonging to Olga Kiymaz, a tenant of another unit in the same complex, jumped on Chee. In affirming the lower court's award of summary judgment, this court held that the landlord had no duty in absence of landlord's actual knowledge of dog's dangerous propensities. Further, the landlord was not liable to owner for nuisance. Finally, the condominium covenants, conditions, and restrictions (CC&R's) did not impose vicarious liability on landlord. | Case | |
| Chiapas |
Chiapas is the only state in Mexico that has yet to establish animal cruelty as a criminal offense. Chiapas has instead enacted the Wildlife Protection Law, which primarily emphasizes the protection and responsible use of "fauna" to ensure the welfare of both wild and domestic animals. |
Policy | |||
| Chile | Angie Vega |
Chile |
Topical Introduction | ||
| Chile - CITES - Decreto 141, 1975 | Decreto 141, 1975 | Approves and adopts the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES), ratified in Washington, March 3, 1973. | Statute | ||
| Chile - Cruelty - Animal Protection Act (in Spanish) | Ley Nº 20.380 - Ley sobre protección de animales. | Diario Oficial Nº 39.477, 3 de octubre de 2009, págs. 3-5 | Ley 20.380 is the is the Chilean Animal Protection Statute. It recognizes animals as living beings and establishes the norms for the “recognition, protection and respect of animals” in order to avoid unnecessary pain and suffering. This law punishes animal cruelty with imprisonment of up to 3 years. Labs, zoos, circuses, and other establishments that keep animals for exhibition and entertainment are allowed, so long as they have the adequate facilities according to the species and adequate safety for people. Animal experimentation in schools is allowed under this law. Rodeo, rein-back and equestrian sports are excepted from provisions of this law. | Statute |
