Results
Title |
Author | Citation | Alternate Citation | Summary | Type |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Manila Conference on Animal Welfare | The Manila Conference on Animal Welfare recognizes: That animal welfare is an issue worth consideration by governments. That the promotion of animalof animal welfare requires collective action and all stakeholders and affected parties must be involved. That work on animal welfare is a continuous process. RECOGNIZING that animals are living, sentient beings and therefore deserve due consideration and respect. | Statute | |||
| Mann v. Regan | 948 A.2d 1075 (Conn.App.2008) | 108 Conn.App. 566, 2008 WL 2446592 (Conn.App.) |
The plaintiff (Mann) brought this action to recover damages for injuries she sustained to her face when she was bitten by a dog owned by the defendant (Regan). The incident occurred when the defendant’s dog was being cared for by the plaintiff at her house while the defendant traveled out of state. With regard to defendant's tacit admission challenge, this court found that defendant’s silence in response to her daughter’s statement, “Well, mom, you know he bit you,” was within the trial court’s discretion to admit as a hearsay exception. As to the jury instructions, this court was not persuaded that there is a meaningful distinction between the words “vicious” and “dangerous” as used in the context of an action stemming from a dog bite. |
Case | |
| Mansbridge v Nichols | [2004] VSC 530 |
The appellant was convicted of seven offences under the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act 1986 (Vic) related to the appellant's treatment of merino sheep in her care. The appellant was successful in overturning three of the charges on the basis that they were latently duplicitous or ambiguous. The appellant was unsuccessful in arguing that the trial judge failed to give adequate reasons. |
Case | ||
| Mansour v. King County | 128 P.3d 1241 (Wash.App. Div. 1,2006) | 131 Wash.App. 255 (Wash.App. Div. 1,2006) |
King County Animal Control issued an order requiring that Mansour to remove his dog from King County or give her up to be euthanized. On appeal, Mansour argued that the Board hearing violated his due process rights. The court of appeals agreed, finding that in order for Mansour, or any other pet owner, to effectively present his case and rebut the evidence against him, due process requires that he be able to subpoena witnesses and records. |
Case | |
| Manzke v. Jefferson County | Slip Copy, 2018 WL 5095678 (W.D. Wis. Aug. 21, 2018) | 58 NDLR P 49 (W.D. Wis. Aug. 21, 2018) | Joshua Pernat and Sara Manzke owned property that had four miniature goats and two geese on it. Sara (plaintiff) applied for a zoning variance and a conditional use permit to accommodate her emotional support animals. Jefferson County and the Town of Ixonia denied her applications. Sara then brought forth claims under the Fair Housing Amendments Act and Wisconsin’s Open Housing Act that she was discriminated against by Jefferson County and the Town of Ixonia. Joshua and Sara also sought a notice of removal of a small claims action brought forth by Jefferson County seeking monetary sanctions for the alleged violations of the zoning variance. Jefferson County argued that the plaintiff’s federal reasonable accommodation claim was not ripe because the County never made a final decision with respect to Sara’s applications for a variance and conditional use permit. When the Town of Ixonia voted to recommend that Jefferson County deny the plaintiff’s variance application, the plaintiff withdrew her applications from consideration. Sara argued that the town’s denial “foretold a denial by the County,” and any further appeal to the County would have been fruitless. The Court did not agree. The County had no obligation to follow the town’s recommendation. The Court dismissed plaintiff’s Fair Housing Amendments Act claim for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and accordingly dismissed plaintiff’s state law claim without prejudice. Since Sara was unable to state a federal claim, the Court also held that Sara and Joshua could not remove the small claim by Jefferson County to federal court. | Case | |
| Man['s Best Friend] Does Not Live By Bread Alone: Imposing a Duty to Provide Veterinary Care | Phyllis Coleman | 12 Animal L. 13 (2005) |
Although all states outlaw cruelty to companion animals, most jurisdictions only prohibit causing unnecessary suffering as well as failure to provide food, water, and shelter. They do not address whether owners must obtain veterinary care. Even the few statutes that mention such treatment do not define exactly what kind and how much is required. This article highlights the deficiencies in these laws. It argues that keeping pets creates an obligation to get them medical treatment when they are sick or injured and also explains why such a duty is necessary. In addition, it proposes uniform legislation that creates an explicit obligation to provide health care to companion animals, imposes a duty on veterinarians to report cruelty, and establishes strict penalties for violations. |
Article | |
| Map of Beagle Freedom Laws | This map contains the 16 state laws commonly called "Beagle Freedom Laws" as of 2025. These laws mandate that retired research dogs be released for adoption when they are no longer needed for research purposes. Typically, the laws facilitate relationships between research facilities and non-profit animal rescues or other animal adoption organizations to allow those organizations to offer the retired dogs to members of the public. Iowa became the most recent state to enact such a law. | State map | |||
| Map of Equine Activity Liability Statutes |
The above map details states that have Equine Activity Liability Laws. |
State map | |||
| Map of Private Exotic Pet Ownership Laws | The above map details states that ban, partially ban, require licensure, or provide miscellaneous regulations on private ownership of wild or exotic animals. Currently, 20 states have what can be called "comprehensive bans." These bans typically classify wild cats, large non-domesticated carnivores, reptiles, and non-human primates as "dangerous animals" or otherwise prohibit private ownership of these species. These laws may outright ban the ownership of wild or exotic animals as pets or only allow those animals to be kept under certain licenses not including pet or private possession (i.e., for educational or scientific purposes). Thirteen (13) states have partial bans on exotic pets, which means that these states ban specific, listed animals by statute, but not all non-traditional, non-domestic animals (for example, these states may allow ownership of small primates). Fourteen (14) states permit private ownership of exotic animals under a licensure or permit scheme. People seeking licenses may have to register with the state, prove satisfactory conditions for the keeping of such animals, pay a fee, and maintain liability insurance. The remaining three (3) states do not have a statutory or regulatory scheme that directly addresses or controls the private ownership of exotic pets, but may regulate some aspect of ownership. These states may require health certificates or import permits for such animals. For more discussion on exotic pet laws, see our Topical Introduction. | State map | |||
| Map of State Dog Tethering Laws | As of 2025, about twenty-three (23) states have laws that limit or otherwise control how owners can tether their dogs. Tethering or chaining a dog under most state laws means that a person ties a dog with a rope or line to a stationary object. While the laws themselves vary from state to state, they do have several consistent features. Some laws that address tethering allow a dog to be tethered for a reasonable period of time. Other states include tethering as part of their anti-cruelty chapters. Indiana defines “neglect” as restraining an animal for more than a brief period in a manner that endangers the animal's life or health by the use of a rope, chain, or tether. Some states specify the manner in which a dog must be tethered or chained (i.e., that a tether must be at least 6 feet long or at least 3 times the length of the dog as measured from the tip of its nose to the base of its tail). This map gives links to these laws. | State map |