Results
| Title | Citation | Alternate Citation | Agency Citation | Summary | Type |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| State ex rel. Griffin v. Thirteen Horses | Not Reported in A.2d, 2006 WL 1828459 (Conn.Super.) |
Defendant's horses were seized on December 14, 2005 pursuant to a search and seizure warrant signed by the court. The warrant was sought, in part, on affidavits that alleged possible violations of the Cruelty to Animals statutory provisions. Defendant Rowley filed the instant motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction arguing that the court lacks jurisdiction because the state has failed to comply with the provisions of § 22-329a and because the search and seizure warrant is invalid. Specifically, defendant maintains that the phrase in subsection (a) authorizing the chief animal control officer to "lawfully take charge of any animal found neglected or cruelly treated" merely allows the officer to enter the owner's property to care for the animal, but does not authorize seizure of the animal without a prior judicial determination. This court rejected Rowley's interpretation of the phrase "lawfully take charge." The court found that, as a practical matter, it is inconceivable that animal control officers, having found animals that are neglected or cruelly treated, would then leave them at the property. |
Case | ||
| ME - Cat - Consolidated Cat Laws | 7 M. R. S. A. § 3916 - 3919C; 1 M. R. S. A. § 217 | ME ST T. 7 § 3916 - 3919C, 4041; ME ST T. 1 § 217 | These statutes comprise Maine's cat laws. Among the provisions include rabies vaccination requirements, stray cat procedures, and the designation of the "state cat." | Statute | |
| Alternatives Research & Development Foundation v. Glickman | 101 F.Supp.2d 7 (D.D.C.,2000) |
In this case, the plaintiffs, a non-profit organization, a private firm and an individual, alleged that the defendants, the USDA and APHIS violated the mandate of the Animal Welfare Act (AWA) by promulgating regulations that exclude birds, mice and rats from the definition of “animal” under the Act. Defendants moved to dismiss, arguing that all three plaintiffs lack standing to bring suit. Defendants also moved to dismiss on the grounds that the exclusion of the three species is within the agency's Congressionally delegated discretion, not subject to judicial review. The court denied defendant's motion, holding that based on Lujan , defendants challenge to standing failed. Further, the AWA does not grant the USDA "unreviewable discretion" to determine what animals are covered under the AWA. |
Case | ||
| US - Horses - Sale of Wild Free-Roaming Horses and Burros | PL 108-447 |
These amendments to the Wild Horses Act, 16 U.S.C.A. § 1333, amended by Public Law 108-447, allow for the sale of animals for commercial purposes in some circumstances, specifically when the excess animal is more than 10 years old, or has been unsuccessfully offered for adoption on at least 3 occasions. Once the excess animal is sold, it will no longer be considered a wild free-roaming horse or burro according to this Act. |
Statute | ||
| IN - Exotic animals, contact - Chapter 26.5. Specified Animals | I.C. 14-22-26.5-1 - 9 | IN ST 14-22-26.5-1 - 9 | This set of Indiana laws was enacted in 2022. A person that owns or possesses a specified animal may not allow a member of the public to (1) come into direct contact with; or (2) enter into a proximity that allows for or permits direct contact with the specified animal, regardless of the age of the specified animal. Essentially, public contact with certain animals that include lions, tigers, leopards, jaguars, and mountain lions (or their hybrids) is prohibited. | Statute | |
| MO - Veterinary - 20 CSR 2270-6.011 Rules of Professional Conduct | 20 MO ADC 2270-6.011 | 20 Mo. Code of State Regulations 2270-6.011 | Subsection 11 of the Rules of Professional Conduct for veterinarians provides that a licensee shall not reveal confidential, proprietary or privileged facts or data or any other sensitive information contained in a patient's medical records without the prior consent of the client except as otherwise authorized or required by law, regulation, or other order. The subsection specifically states that "[w]hen these situations [of abuse and neglect] cannot be resolved through education, the board considers it the responsibility of the veterinarian to report such cases to the appropriate authorities." Thus, the rule seems to create an ethical responsibility that mandates the reporting of abuse or neglect by veterinarians. | Administrative | |
| Salzer v. King Kong Zoo | 773 S.E.2d 548 (N.C. Ct. App. July 7, 2015) | 242 N.C. App. 120, 2015 WL 4081841 (N.C. Ct. App. July 7, 2015) | The Plaintiffs appeal from an order granting dismissal of their complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. In 2014, Plaintiffs filed a civil suit under North Carolina's anti-cruelty "citizen suit" provision, N.C. Gen.Stat. § 19A–1, against King Kong Zoo. Plaintiffs contended that the zoo kept animals in "grossly substandard" conditions. King Kong Zoo is an Animal Welfare Act (“AWA”) licensed exhibitor of wild and domestic animals. The district court granted Defendants' motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, finding that the applicable law here is the AWA and “N.C. Gen.Stat. § 19A–1 ... has no application to licensed zoo operations.” On appeal, this Court found in a matter of first impression that the AWA does not expressly preempt claims under N.C. Gen.Stat. § 19A. Instead, the AWA "empowers Section 19A to work in conjunction with the AWA." The Court also found no conflict of law that would preclude bringing the action. The matter was reversed and remanded to the Cherokee County District Court for determination consistent with this opinion. | Case | |
| State v. Gerard | 832 N.W.2d 314 (Minn.App.,2013) | 2013 WL 3155477 (Minn.App.,2013) |
This case considers whether the trial court erred when it dismissed the felony count of unjustifiably killing an animal based on lack of probable cause. The incident stems from the killing of the neighbors' cat with a shotgun by defendant-respondent. At trial, he filed a motion to dismiss for lack of probable cause that was accompanied by a notarized affidavit of the responding police deputy stating the shooting of the cat was "justified." The trial court dismissed the complaint finding insufficient evidence that respondent had unjustifiably killed the cat. On appeal, the court found the district court's reliance on the deputy's lay opinion was improper. The court found it was within the jury's province to determine whether respondent's actions were justified or unjustified based on the evidence at trial. |
Case | |
| IN - Exotic pet - Chapter 26. Wild Animal Permit. | I.C. 14-22-26-1 to 6 | IN ST 14-22-26-1 to 14-22-26-6 | This set of Indiana laws concerns the keeping of protected and dangerous wild animals. Under the law, a person must obtain a permit to possess these classes of animals. A permit may be suspended if an emergency exists (e.g., the animal is in peril or the animal is in a position to harm another animal). | Statute | |
| CO - Assistance Animals - Colorado Assistance Animal/Guide Dog Laws | C. R. S. A. § 12-240-144; § 12-245-229; § 12-255-133; § 18-13-107, § 18-13-107.3, § 18-13-107.7; § 18-9-202; § 18-1.3-602; § 24-34-301; § 24-34-309; § 24-34-801 - 804; § 40-9-109; § 42-4-808 | CO ST § 12-240-144; § 12-245-229; § 12-255-133; § 18-13-107, § 18-13-107.3, § 18-13-107.7; § 18-9-202; § 18-1.3-602; § 24-34-301; § 24-34-309; § 24-34-801 - 804; § 40-9-109; § 42-4-808 | The following statutes comprise the state's relevant assistance animal and service animal laws. | Statute |