Results
| Title | Citation | Alternate Citation | Agency Citation | Summary | Type |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| US - CITES Regs - Taking, Possession, Transportation, Sale, Purchase, Barter, Exportation, and Importation of Wildlife and Plant | 50 C.F.R. § 23.1 to 92 |
These regulations describe the purpose of CITES, the criteria for listing in the appendices, and the requirements for importing or exporting protected animals or plants. |
Administrative | ||
| NJ - Dog - Chapter 19. Dogs, Taxation and Liability for Injuries Caused by. | NJSA 4:19-15.1 to 4:19-15.33 | NJ ST 4:19-15.1 to 4:19-15.33 | These New Jersey statutes comprise the laws for licensing, impounding, appointment of animal control officers, and kennel/pet shop regulations. It also includes a provision that prohibits impounded animals from being sold or donated for experimentation, as well as pet sterilization provisions. | Statute | |
| Volosen v. State | 227 S.W.3d 77 (Tx.Crim.App. 2007) |
The appellant/defendant mauled a miniature dachshund to death after the dog entered a yard where the appellant kept his chickens. The State of Texas prosecuted the appellant/defendant for cruelty to animals on the ground that the appellant/defendant killed the dog without legal authority. The appellant/defendant, however, argued that section 822.033 of the Texas Health and Safety Code, an entirely different statute, provided that authority. After the appeals court reversed the district court’s decision to convict the defendant/appellant, the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals found that the appellant/defendant had failed to meet his burden of production to show the applicability of his claimed defense and thus reversed the court of appeals’ judgment and remand the case back to that court. |
Case | ||
| Cox v. U.S. Dept. of Agriculture | 925 F.2d 1102 (8th Cir. 1991) |
USDA had suspended a kennel owner’s license for 90 days and imposed a fine on the owner for violating AWA regulations. These violations included delivering dogs for transportation in commerce, that were under eight weeks old, failing to hold dogs for at least five days after acquiring them, and refusing APHIS inspections. Owner claimed that such sanctions were excessive. However, the court found that there was willful violation of the AWA, since inspections were refused. Also, ignorance is not considered a defense, and although the owners claimed they did not know the age of the eight-week old puppies, they could have found out. Thus, the sanction was appropriate. |
Case | ||
| Colombia - Cruelty - LEY 1774, 2016 | Ley 1774 de 2016 | This law modifies the Animal Protection Statute Ley 84, 1989 by modifying the Civil Code and the Criminal Code. Ley 1774 changes the status of the animals in the legal system, by declaring that all animals are ‘sentient beings’, subject to special protection against pain and suffering. The duty of animal protection, is established as a collective responsibility where the government and the citizens are required to assist and protect animals. Citizens have the duty to report when an animal is being subject to cruelty. | Statute | ||
| OR - Impound - 609.090. Impounding dogs running at large; disposition of chasing, menacing or biting | O. R. S. § 609.090 | OR ST § 609.090 | This Oregon statute provides that when a dog is running at large contrary to state or municipal law, a police or dog control officer shall impound it. Unless claimed by its owner, a dog will be held at least five days if it has a license tag. A "reasonable effort" shall be made to notify the keeper of a dog before the dog is removed from impoundment. This statute also states that, upon finding that the dog has menaced or chased a person when on premises other than the premises occupied exclusively by the keeper or has bitten a person, the dog control board or county governing body may order that the dog be killed in a humane manner. Before ordering that the dog be killed, the board or governing body shall consider the factors described in ORS 609.093 and issue written findings on those factors. A keeper of the dog may also file a petition to prevent the destruction. If the dog is not killed, the board or governing body may impose reasonable restrictions on the keeping of the dog. | Statute | |
| MO - Dog Ordinances - Chapter 77. Third Class Cities. | V.A.M.S. 77.510 | MO ST 77.510 | This Missouri statute provides that a city council may tax, restrain and prohibit the running at large of dogs, and provide for their destruction when at large contrary to ordinance, and impose penalties on the owners or keepers thereof. | Statute | |
| State v. Mallis | 964 N.E.2d 1096 (Ohio App. 7 Dist.,2011) | 196 Ohio App.3d 640 (2011); Ohio- 4752 |
Appellant, Cheryl Mallis, appealed the judgment of the Youngstown Municipal Court convicting her on one count of failure to confine a vicious dog and one count of failure to confine a dog. She was originally charged with two counts of violating the vicious-dog statute, R.C. 955.22(D)(1), and she moved to have those charges dismissed prior to trial. The motion was overruled, and appellant now challenges that ruling on appeal. The Court of Appeals held that the state could not prosecute the dog owner for failure to confine a vicious dog under the vicious dog statute since the statute had previously been declared by the Supreme Court to be unconstitutional on its face and had not been amended or modified thereafter. |
Case | |
| IN RE: E. LEE COX AND BECKY COX, D/B/A PIXY PALS KENNEL | 49 Agric. Dec. 115 (1990) | 1990 WL 320949 (U.S.D.A.) |
This is a disciplinary proceeding under the Animal Welfare Act, as amended (7 U.S.C. ss 2131- 2156). On April 20, 1989, Administrative Law Judge Edwin S. Bernstein (ALJ) issued an initial Decision and Order suspending respondents' license for 90 days, and thereafter until respondents demonstrate compliance with the Act and regulations, assessing a civil penalty of $12,000, and directing respondents to cease and desist from failing to retain possession and control of all dogs until they are at least 8 weeks of age and have been weaned, failing to hold dogs for not less than 5 business days after acquisition, failing to keep and maintain proper records, and failing to allow inspection of respondents' facility and records. Dealers and other regulated persons are required to grant access to their records during ordinary business hours, without any advance notice from Department. |
Case | |
| SD - Vehicle - 41-1-5.7. Disposition of deer and antelope killed by motor vehicle | S D C L § 41-1-5.7 | SD ST § 41-1-5.7 | This South Dakota statute states that if any deer or antelope is killed by a motor vehicle on a public highway, the person who desires to possess that animal shall notify a conservation officer. The conservation officer may give a dated and written authorization allowing possession of the animal at no fee. However, no part of an animal so obtained may be sold, bartered, or traded. | Statute |