Results
| Title | Citation | Alternate Citation | Summary | Type |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| NJ - Humane Societies - 40:48-5.1. Contracts with humane societies where no pound established; advertisement unnecessary | N. J. S. A. 40:48-5.1 | NJ ST 40:48-5.1 | This law relates to municipalities that do not have public pounds for the keeping of stray dogs or cats.Those municipalities may contract with nonproift humane societies or similar associations that have been operating for one or more years for the keeping and redemption of those animals. | Statute |
| Liberty Humane Soc., Inc. v. Jacobs | Not Reported in A.2d, 2008 WL 2491961 (N.J.Super.A.D.) | This case concerns the authority of the Department of Health to revoke certifications of animal control officers who willfully contravened the state law on impounding dogs. The court found that “[s] ince the Department acknowledged that it is charged with revoking certifications of animal control off icers when those officers pose ‘ a threat to the health and safety’ of the community, it should follow that allegations of officers willfully and illegally taking a dog from its owner and falsifying records to claim it a stray so as to expose it to adoption by another or euthanasia calls for the Department to take action. ” It would be both arbitrary and capricious for the Department to ignore its duty to determine if revocation of certification is required. | Case | |
| VT - Veterinary - CHAPTER 44. Veterinary Medicine. | 26 V.S.A. § 2401 - 2433 | VT ST T. 26 § 2401- 2433 | 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 |
| Germany - Cruelty - German Animal Welfare Act | Federal Law Gazette I, p. 1094 |
This is the primary piece of animal welfare legislation in Germany. It enforces the utilitarian principle that there must be good reason for one to cause an animal harm and identifies that it is the responsibility of human beings to protect the lives and well-being of their fellow creatures. For a discussion on the German Animal Welfare Act as compared to other European and United States animal welfare laws, see Detailed Discussion. |
Statute | |
| RI - Pawtucket - Breed - § 116-37. Registration of Rottweilers required; § 116-37.1 Pit bulls prohibited | PAWTUCKET, R.I., CODIFIED ORDINANCES § 116-37; § 116-37.1 (2003) |
In Pawtucket, Rhode Island, it is unlawful to own, possess, keep, exercise control over, maintain, harbor, transport, or sell any pit bull dog. Exceptions are made for animal shelters, dog shows, and dogs that have been previously registered and licensed. In the last case, the owner must be at least 21 years of age, keep liability insurance of at least $100,000, have the dog sterilized, keep the dog properly confined, and post a "PIT BULL DOG" sign. A violation may result in a fine ($500 - $1,000) and/or imprisonment up to 30 days. The dog may also be impounded and/or destroyed. |
Local Ordinance | |
| United States v. Sandia | 188 F.3d 1215 (10th Cir 1999) |
This case was vacated by the Tenth Circuit in the Hardman order. Defendant in this case sold golden eagle skins to undercover agents in New Mexico. On appeal, defendant contended that the district court failed to consider the facts under a RFRA analysis. The Tenth Circuit disagreed, finding that defendant never claimed that his sale of eagle parts was for religious purposes and that the sale of eagle parts negates a claim of religious infringement on appeal. For further discussion on religious challenges to the BGEPA, see Detailed Discussion. |
Case | |
| CO - Cruelty, reporting - § 19-3-304. Persons required to report child abuse or neglect | C. R. S. A. § 19-3-304 | CO ST § 19-3-304 | This Colorado statute relates to mandatory reporting for child abuse or neglect. With respect to animal-related issues, the statute requires veterinarians, officers and agents of the state bureau of animal protection, and animal control officers to report suspected abuse or neglect as described in the law. | Statute |
| TN - Hunting - Part 3. Hunter Protection Act. | T. C. A. § 70-4-301 - 303 | TN ST § 70-4-301 - 303 | This section represents Tennessee's "Hunter Protection Act." The law makes it a Class C misdemeanor to interfere with the lawful taking of a wild animal by another with the intent to prevent the taking; disturb or engage in an activity that will tend to disturb a wild animal, with the intent to prevent the lawful taking; disturb a person engaged in lawful hunting with the intent to prevent the taking; enter or remain on land with intent to violate this section; fail to obey a peace officer's orders to desist from conduct in violation of this section; or use a drone with the intent to conduct video surveillance of private citizens who are lawfully hunting or fishing without obtaining the written consent of the persons being surveilled. A person affected by conduct in violation of this section may seek an injunction or recover damages, including punitive damages. | Statute |
| CA - Historical - General Laws of 1913: Title 14: Section 596-599f | Cal. Penal Code §§ 597 - 599f (1913) | The General Laws of California from 1913, title 14, covers Malicious Mischief which includes sections concerning: Cruelty to Animals, Poisoning of Cattle, killing of birds in cemeteries and killing of gulls or cranes. The Cruelty to Animal section describes laws concerning horses, abandoned animal, torture and maiming of animals, use of animals in fights, and arrest without warrants. In addition, the section covers evidence, stallions, and impounding without food and water. The section about the killing of birds in the cemetery concerns also killing and detaining of homing pigeons. The last section about killing of gulls and cranes also concerns the destruction of eggs and nests. In addition, the section covers killing of elk and prosecution for these offenses. | Statute | |
| Commonwealth v. Craven | 817 A.2d 451 (Pa. 2003) |
The issue before the Court in this consolidated appeal was whether the trial court properly determined that 18 Pa.C.S. § 5511(h.1)(6), which criminalizes an individual's attendance at an animal fight "as a spectator," is unconstitutionally vague and overbroad. Specifically, appellees contended that the statute criminalized "mere presence" at a dog fight. The Supreme Court disagreed, finding the evidence showed appellees were active spectators at the fight (as seen in the videotape evidence). The court concluded that the statute is constitutionally sound, thereby reversing the lower court's decision that the statute imposed strict liability on mere presence. |
Case |