Results
Displaying 21 - 30 of 6638
| Title | Citation | Alternate Citation | Summary | Type |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Summer Research Grant Application 2020 | Summer Research Grants: The Animal Legal & Historical Center is offering five $1,000 summer research grants for 2020. Under our grant program, students are assigned topics and they draft a paper for posting on the website along with relevant primary legal materials. The commitment is to a minimum of 100 hours to be completed before August 15, 2020. We will take applications from any student enrolled in an ABA US law school (or Canadian). Given the limited number of grants and the expected number of applications, those who have completed their second year of law school will be given a priority. See attached pdf file for more information on how to apply! | Policy | ||
| AZ - Initiatives - Proposition 201 (cockfighting) | Proposition 201 (1998) | Proposition 201 would amend state law to create the crime of cockfighting. Cockfighting would be classified as a class 5 felony, generally punishable by a possible fine of up to $150,000 and a possible prison term ranging from nine months to two years. Presence at a cockfight would be classified as a class 1 misdemeanor, generally punishable by a possible fine of up to $2,500 and a possible jail term of up to six months. This proposition would extend existing state law animal cruelty exemptions and defenses that apply to lawful hunting, ranching, farming, rodeos and related activities to also apply to cockfighting. The measure passed in 1998 with 68.1% of the vote. | Statute | |
| WI - Trust - 701.0408 Trust care for an animal | W.S.A. 701.1110; 701.0402; 701.0408 | WI ST 701.1110; 701.0402; 701.0408 | This statute represents Wisconsin's pet trust law. The former law was not a specific pet trust law, but the new law is. The new provisions allows for a trust to be created for the care of an animal alive during the settlor's lifetime. | Statute |
| KS - Dodge City - Breed - §§ 2-401 - 2-410 PIT BULL DOGS | DODGE CITY, KS., CITY CODE §§ 2-401 - 2-410 (2004) |
In Dodge City, Kansas, it is illegal to own, keep, harbor, or possess a pit bull dog, with an exception for dogs registered with the city of Dodge City, whose owners obtain a permit and comply with certain standards. Such requirements include keeping the dog confined, and if outside of a pen, the use of a leash and a special collar, microchipping, "Beware of Dog" signs, and $100,000 liability insurance, and identification photographs. Violations may result in the seizure, impoundment, and/or removal of a dog from the city. A violation may incur a fine of $2,500 and/or imprisonment of up to one year.
|
Local Ordinance | |
| UK - Fur - Fur Farming (Prohibition) Act 2000 | 2000 CHAPTER 33 |
An Act to prohibit the keeping of animals solely or primarily for slaughter for the value of their fur; to provide for the making of payments in respect of the related closure of certain businesses; and for connected purposes. |
Statute | |
| Newsome v. Erwin | 137 F.Supp.2d 934 (S.D. Ohio 2000) |
Plaintiff brought § 1983 action against county sheriff and others alleging that defendants violated his Eighth and Fourteenth Amendment rights when they shot and killed his pet lioness. |
Case | |
| Siegel v. State | 635 S.W.3d 313 (Ark., 2021), reh'g denied (Jan. 13, 2022) | 2021 Ark. 228 (2021) | Defendant Karen Siegel was convicted of 31 misdemeanor counts of animal cruelty based on 31 breeding dogs that were seized from her home. At issue here on appeal by defendant is whether the underlying statutes that allows seizure of the animals, Arkansas Code Annotated sections 5-62-106 and 5-62-111, are constitutional. In addition, defendant argues that by not ordering return of the seized dogs to defendant and compensating defendant for her loss of property was error. The first circuit court criminal case was dismissed on speedy-trial grounds and that ruling was upheld in later appeal. The issues on the instant appeal relate to the status of the seized dogs. Siegel argues that the circuit court erred by not ordering the return of her seized property and also not assigning a value for the property that was destroyed or damaged. The court here looked at the language of the seizure statute and found that Siegel failed to post a bond to care for the dog as is contemplated by the statute. The statute provides no award of damages to a defendant and the county that seized the dog is not a party in the criminal action brought by the state. Thus, the lower court was correct in stating that Siegel's remedy was a separate civil action. As to Siegel's challenges to the constitutionality of those statutes, this court found the argument moot since review of the issue would have no practical legal effect upon a then-existing controversy. The case was affirmed in part and dismissed as moot in part. | Case |
| Animal Law Index Volume 2 |
Animal Law Review, Volume 2 (1996)INTRODUCTIONANIMALS AS PROPERTY |
Policy | ||
| In the Matter of a Protective Order for Jean Marie Primrose - Cat Champion Corporation, Appellant v. Jean Marie Primrose, Respon | This series of actions stemmed from the seizure of 11 cats from Jean Marie Primrose from her Linn County, Oregon home. The cats were neglected, thin, and missing patches of hair when they were removed from Ms. Primrose's home and placed in the custody of Cat Champion, a non-profit rescue organization. Ms. Primrose was charged with criminal animal neglect in the second degree, but the trial court dismissed those charges because she was found incompetent due to a cognitive impairment. Because the case was dismissed, the cats were not forfeited by law and Primrose remained the rightful owner. Further, Cat Champion had incurred a $32,510 debt in caring for the animals. In lieu of returning the cats to Ms. Primrose, who Cat Champions felt was incapable of adequately caring for them, Cat Champions filed a petition for a limited protective order as a fiduciary for the care and placement of the cats. The probate court ruled against Cat Champions, finding that nothing in the relevant chapter allowed the court to permanently divest Ms. Primrose of her personal property (the cats). On appeal, the Oregon Court of Appeals overturned the lower court's order and held that the probate court did indeed have authority to enter a limited protective order under ORS 125.650 as a "fiduciary necessary to implement a protective order." | Pleading | ||
| UT - Veterinary - Chapter 28. Veterinary Practice Act. | U.C.A. 1953 § 58-28-101 - 606 | UT ST § 58-28-101 - 606 | These are the state's veterinary practice laws. Among the provisions include licensing requirements, laws concerning the state veterinary board, veterinary records laws, and the laws governing disciplinary actions for impaired or incompetent practitioners. | Statute |