Results
| Title | Citation | Alternate Citation | Summary | Type |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| CA - Historical - 1872: Cruelty to Animals | Cal. Penal Code 597 (1872) | Enacted February 14, 1872 (almost identical with Field's Draft, Section 699), and then read: "Every person who maliciously kills, maims, or wounds an animal, the property of another, or who maliciously and cruelly beats, tortures, or injures any animal, whether belonging to himself or another, is guilty of a misdemeanor." | Statute | |
| Commonwealth v. Creighton | 639 A.2d 1296 (Pa.Cmwlth.,1994) | 163 Pa.Cmwlth. 68 (1994) |
In this Pennsylvania case, a cat owner challenged a local ordinance that limited the number of cats she could own at her residence (she owned 25 cats that were rescued "mousers" from factories; the ordinance limited ownership to 5). The court noted that the preamble to the ordinance stated that pursuant to the Borough Code and "in the interest of preserving the public health, safety and general welfare of the residents ... [the Borough] desires to limit the number of dogs and cats kept by any one person and/or residence," but did not state what legitimate public health, safety and welfare goals the Borough sought to advance by enacting this ordinance. Thus, from the information before the court, it could not say whether the Borough ordinance here was a reasonable means to effectuate a legitimate governmental goal. |
Case |
| UT - Predator Control - Chapter 23. Agricultural and Wildlife Damage Prevention Act | U.C.A. 1953 § 4-23-101 - 111 | UT ST § 4-23-101 - 111 | This Utah statute is known as the Agricultural and Wildlife Damage Prevention Act. It creates the Agricultural and Wildlife Damage Prevention Board and Agricultural and Wildlife Damage Prevention Account. This act also makes it a class B misdemeanor to hold a raccoon or coyote in captivity (with exceptions). | Statute |
| AU - Parks - National Parks and Wildlife Act 1972 (SA) | National Parks and Wildlife Act 1972 |
An Act to provide for the establishment and management of reserves for public benefit and enjoyment; to provide for the conservation of wildlife in a natural environment; and for other purposes.
|
Statute | |
| KS - El Dorado - Breed - Chapter 6.20 WILD AND DANGEROUS ANIMALS (Pit Bull Ordinance) | EL DORADO, KS., CODE OF ORDINANCES §§ 6.04.010 - 6.04.050 (2009) |
In El Dorado, Kansas, it is unlawful to keep, harbor, own or possess any pit bull dog, with an exception for dogs registered by March 1, 1988. Such dogs may remain within the city subject to the requirements, such as keeping it on a leash or confined and the use of “Beware of Dog” signs. A violation may result in a fine of up to $1,000, imprisonment up to 30 days, and/or an order to pay all costs for the dog’s care. The dog may also be ordered removed from the city or impounded.
|
Local Ordinance | |
| Terranova v. United States Dep't of Agric. | 820 F. App'x 279 (5th Cir. 2020) | 2020 WL 4589346 (5th Cir. Aug. 10, 2020) | Petitioners seek review of a decision and order of the USDA/APHIS determining that they violated various provisions of the Animal Welfare Act (“AWA”) and its implementing regulations, imposing civil penalties, and revoking the exhibitor license granted to Terranova Enterprises, Inc. Petitioners were licensees who provide wild animals like tigers and monkeys for movies, circuses, and other entertainment. In 2015 and 2016, APHIS filed complaints against petitioners that they willfully violated multiple provisions of the AWA and knowingly violated a cease and desist order issued in 2011 to avoid future violations of the AWA. After consolidating the complaints, the Administrative Law Judge ("ALJ") found that petitioners willfully committed four violations, so the ALJ issued a cease and desist order, suspended petitioners' license for 30 days, and assessed a $10,000 penalty and an $11,550 civil penalty for failing to obey the prior cease and desist order. On appeal by both parties to the Judicial Officer of the USDA, petitioners' exhibitor license was revoked and the penalties were increased to $35,000 and $14,850, respectively. On appeal here to the Fifth Circuit, petitioners claim that the determinations of the Judicial Officer were not supported by substantial evidence and that she abused her discretion in revoking their exhibitor license. This court found there was sufficient evidence to support the violations, including failing to allow APHIS officials to conduct compliance investigations and inspections, faulty tiger enclosures, insufficient distance/barriers between tigers and the public, failure to make an environmental enrichment plan, and failings involving tiger enclosure and protection from inclement weather, among other things. With regard to petitioners' claim that the Judicial Officer abused her discretion in revoking the exhibitor license, this court court found that petitioners committed more than one willful violation of the AWA so revocation was not unwarranted or without justification. The court concluded that the USDA Secretary’s order was not arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with the law, and that it was supported by substantial evidence. Therefore, the court denied the petition for review. | Case |
| Finn v. Anderson | 64 Misc. 3d 273, 101 N.Y.S.3d 825 (N.Y. City Ct. 2019) | 2019 WL 1984091 (N.Y. City Ct. Apr. 30, 2019) | This replevin action concerns ownership of an "indoor/outdoor" cat named "Sylvester" or "Marshmallow," depending on perspective. In September 2018, plaintiffs found an unidentified, thin, white cat hanging around their house looking for food. After several months of feeding the cat, in January 2019, plaintiffs decided to bring the cat inside and take it to a vet, where he was de-wormed, vaccinated, treated for fleas, microchipped, and dubbed "Sylvester." A few weeks later, Sylvester accidentally got out of plaintiff's house where plaintiff found out from a neighbor that the cat was taken back by the Defendant, who claimed that Sylvester is actually "Marshmallow" and had been plaintiff's indoor/outdoor cat since 2009. Plaintiff then filed a replevin action against defendant to recover legal possession of Sylvester, aka Marshmallow. The City Court, New York, Jamestown, Chautauqua County first noted that, regardless of how people feel about their dogs and cats, New York law treats them as personal property and even "chattel." While the court observed that the trend has been the "de-chattelization" of household pets in New York, it has not gone so far as to adopt a "best interests" standard to replace the superior possessory rights standard. The court noted that there is inherent difficulty in applying a best interests standard with pets because there is no practical way of gauging a pet's feelings and assessing its interests. The court further stated that New York Courts have developed a “quasi-interests based standard” for pets that considers highly subjective factors. Significantly, the court declared the following: "[w]hile it appears the Appellate Division, Fourth Department, has not addressed the issue, this Court concludes that it is time to declare that a pet should no longer be considered “personal property” like a table or car." Thus, using a "best for all concerned" articulated in Raymond v. Lachmann in 1999, this court weighed the factors whether to place Sylvester/Marshmallow with plaintiff or defendant based on the care provided by both parties. The court found, in a very close decision, that the “best interests of all concerned” test leaves the custody of the cat, Sylvester/Marshmallow, with the defendant. While the court was convinced that plaintiffs were genuinely concerned for Sylvester's/Marshmallow's welfare and spent time and money on his care, it appears that Sylvester/Marshmallow may have “voted with his feet” to return to his home of ten years with the defendant and her children. The Court found in favor of the defendant, and plaintiff's claim was dismissed. | Case |
| People v. McKnight | 302 N.W.2d 241 (Mich. 1980) | 102 Mich. App. 581 (Mich. 1980) |
Defendant was convicted of willfully and maliciously killing animals for kicking a dog to death. Defendant argued on appeal that dogs were not included under the statute punishing the willful and malicious killing of horses, cattle, or other beasts of another. The court found that the term "other beasts" includes dogs. Further, defendant argued that the evidence was insufficient to support a finding of the requisite willful and malicious intent to kill the dog. The court disagreed and held that inferences from the surrounding circumstances were sufficient to support a finding of malicious intent. The court affirmed his convictions. |
Case |
| WY - Assistance Animals - Assistance Animal/Guide Dog Laws | W.S.1977 § 35-13-201 to 206; § 31-5-611 | WY ST § 35-13-201 to 206; § 31-5-611 | The following statutes comprise the state's relevant assistance animal and service animal laws. | Statute |
| SC - Dogfighting - Chapter 27. Animal Fighting and Baiting Act. | Code 1976 § 16-27-10 to 80 | SC ST § 16-27-10 to 80 | This South Carolina section comprises the state's Animal Fighting and Baiting Act. Under the Act, any person who owns an animal for the purpose of fighting or baiting, is a party to any fighting or baiting of any animal, or obtains the use of any structure for the purpose of fighting or baiting any animal is guilty of a felony and upon conviction must be punished by a fine of $5000 or 5 years imprisonment or both. The section also provides for seizure and forfeiture of animals used in fighting operations. | Statute |