Results
| Title | Citation | Alternate Citation | Summary | Type |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| IL - Dog Fighting - Chapter 720. Criminal Offenses | 720 I.L.C.S. 5/48-1 | IL ST CH 720 § 5/48-1 | The following statute comprises Illinois' dogfighting law. Under the law, it is a felony to promote or instigate a fight, or to train or sell a dog for dogfighting purposes. Further, no person may solicit a minor to violate this Section. Providing equipment or aiding in providing equipment for a fight is also a felony. Knowingly attending a dogfight is a Class 4 felony for a first violation. A second or subsequent violation of subsection (g) of this Section is a Class 3 felony. | Statute |
| MN - Trust - 501C.0408. Trust for care of animal | M.S.A. § 501C.0408 | MN ST § 501C.0408 | This Minnesota law enacted in 2016 allows for the creation of a pet trust. A trust may be created to provide for the care of an animal alive during the settlor's lifetime. The trust terminates upon the death of the animal or, if the trust was created to provide for the care of more than one animal alive during the settlor's lifetime, upon the death of the last surviving animal. Interestingly, the trust may not be enforced for more than 90 years. | Statute |
| Map of States with Companion Animal (Pet) Trust Laws | As of 2022, all 50 states and the District of Columbia have enacted pet trust laws. Minnesota was the last state and enacted its pet trust law in 2016. | State map | ||
| Morehead v. Deitrich | 932 N.E.2d 1272 (Ind.App.,2010) | 2010 WL 3430525 |
Postal carrier sued landlord for negligence after tenant's dog bit her. The Court of Appeals affirmed summary judgment for defendant, holding that landlord did not have a duty to keep dog from biting postal carrier absent control over the property. |
Case |
| MI - Habitat Protection - Wilderness, Wild, and Natural Areas (Natural Resources and Environmental Protection Act) | M.C.L.A. 324.35101 - 35111 | MI ST 324.35101 - 35111 | These sections define, identify, and set guidelines for the protection of wilderness, wild, and/or natural areas. | Statute |
| Maine v. Taylor | 106 S.Ct. 2440 (1986) | 477 U.S. 131 (1986) |
Appellee bait dealer (appellee) arranged to have live baitfish imported into Maine, despite a Maine statute prohibiting such importation. He was indicted under a federal statute making it a federal crime to transport fish in interstate commerce in violation of state law. He moved to dismiss the indictment on the ground that the Maine statute unconstitutionally burdened interstate commerce. The Court held that the ban did not violate the commerce clause in that it served legitimate local purpose, i.e., protecting native fisheries from parasitic infection and adulteration by non-native species, that could not adequately be served by available nondiscriminatory alternatives. |
Case |
| Confiscated night monkeys veterinary evaluation | Slideshow Images | |||
| FL - Veterinary - Veterinary Medical Practice. | West's F. S. A. § 474.201 - 221 | FL ST § 474.201 - 221 | 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 |
| Perfect Puppy, Inc. v. City of E. Providence, R.I. | 807 F.3d 415 (1st Cir. 2015) | Perfect Puppy signed a lease with a building located in the city of East Providence on April 26, 2014. Perfect Puppy intended to use the building to sell puppies and was given a “Pet Shop” license by the state of Rhode Island. On June 3, 2014, East Providence passed an ordinance banning dog and cat sales and as a result, Perfect Puppy filed suit against the city for a “facial-taking.” A “facial-taking” is when “an ordinance’s mere enactment amounts to a taking.” On appeal, the court held that it did not have jurisdiction over Perfect Puppy’s facial-taking claim because Perfect Puppy needed to file suit for compensation against the city and get rejected before the issue could be determined by this court. As a result, the court remanded the case back to the state court to be decided. | Case | |
| Mitchell v. State | 118 So.3d 295 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2013) | 38 Fla. L. Weekly D1641, 2013 WL 3927676 |
The defendant in this case was convicted of animal cruelty for injuries his dog sustained after his dog bit him. Upon appeal, the court found that the prosecutor had erred by framing the argument in a manner that improperly shifted the burden of proof from whether the defendant had intentionally and maliciously inflicted injuries on the dog to whether the State's witnesses were lying. Since the court found this shift in burden was not harmless, the court reversed and remanded the defendant's conviction. |
Case |