Results
| Title | Citation | Alternate Citation | Summary | Type |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Connecticut General Statutes: Title 56: Sections 6480 - 6482n | Conn. Gen. Stat. Tit. 56 §§ 6480-6482 (1918) | Sections 6480-6482 of Title 56 from the 1918 General Laws of Connecticut covers offences against public policy. pecifically, the statutes cover following topics: animal fighting, penalty for attending a fight, and unlawful exhibition of sport for gain. | Statute | |
| McClendon v. Story County Sheriff's Office | 403 F.3d 510 (8th Cir. 2005) | 403 F.3d 510 (8th Cir. 2005) |
A farmer was neglecting her horses and the entire herd confiscated by animal control officers. The farmer brought a section 1983 claim against the animal control officers for acting outside of the scope of their warrant by removing more than just the sick horses. The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court in part, holding the animal control officers were entitled to qualified immunity and seizure of all the horses was not unreasonable or outside the scope of the warrant. |
Case |
| U.S. v. Thompson | 147 F. 637 (D.C.N.D. 1906) |
Act May 25, 1900, c. 553, Sec. 4, 31 Stat. 188, incorporated in former section 393 of Title 18, was limited in its application to animals or birds killed in violation of game laws, and animals or birds killed during the open season - "the export of which is not prohibited by law," according to the court. The court held an indictment would not stand for a failure to mark a package containing game killed during the open season but the export of which was prohibited by the law of the state where the same was killed. |
Case | |
| IN - Pet Shop Rules - PREVENTION OF CRUELTY TO ANIMALS (PET SHOP RULES), 2016 | 59 of 1960 | These Rules were drafted by the Central Government in exercise of its powers under Section 38(1) of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960. The Rules make it mandatory for pet shops to be registered and sets out requirements for registration. The Rules set out the basic amenities that pet shops must have to ensure the welfare and health of animals. | Statute | |
| CO - Facility dog - § 16-10-404. Use of a court facility dog--definitions | C. R. S. A. § 16-10-404 | CO ST § 16-10-404 | This Colorado law enacted in 2019 states that a court may order order that a witness's testimony be offered while a court facility dog is in the courtroom during a criminal proceeding if the judge determines by a preponderance of the evidence that: (1) the presence of a court facility dog with the witness during the witness's testimony would reduce the witness's anxiety and enhance the ability of the court to receive full and accurate testimony; (2) the arrangements for an available court facility dog during the witness's testimony would not interfere with efficient criminal proceedings; and (3) no prejudice would result to any party due to the presence of a court facility dog with the witness. A "court facility dog" must be a graduate of an accredited internationally recognized assistance dog organization. | Statute |
| Animal Law Review Index |
Animal Law ReviewThe Animal Law Review is published by the students of the Law School of Lewis and Clark University just outside Portland, Oregon, USA. |
Policy | ||
| PH - Animal Welfare - Memorandum Issued on the Animal Welfare Act | Memorandum Circular - NO. 2003-153 (on the AWA) |
This Memorandum concerns Republic Act No. 8485, other wise known as the Animal Welfare Act of 1998, passed to protect and promote the welfare of all animals in the Philippines. The Memorandum was issued because, despite the passage of the Act, reports reaching the Committee on Animal Welfare indicate the continued cruelty to animals, especially dogs, in the country today. |
Statute | |
| Phillips v. San Luis Obispo County Dept. |
These are detailed briefs on why an administrative hearing is required before a "dangerous" dog is euthanized. |
Pleading | ||
| Defenders of Wildlife v. Hall | 807 F.Supp.2d 972 (D.Mont., 2011) | 2011 WL 3359937 (D.Mont.) |
Several wildlife organizations filed suit to challenge the FWS's Final Rule delisting the gray wolf Northern Rocky Mountain distinct population segment. The case was put on hold pending the outcome of several other legal battles regarding the wolf's status on the Endangered Species List, during which gray wolf protections were reinstated. Then, after Congress passed the 2011 fiscal year budget which contained a provision requiring the FWS to delist the Northern Rocky Mountain DPS, the court dismissed the case for lack of jurisdiction. |
Case |
| Birmingham Humane Society v. Dickson | 661 So.2d 759 (Ala.,1994) |
The owner of a lost dog found the dog in an animal shelter and asked for its return. The shelter gave it back but sterilized it first despite the owner's wishes that it not be sterilized. The court held the shelter owed a duty to give the dog back without sterilizing it and affirmed a finding of negligence. |
Case |