|Title||Citation||Alternate Citation||Agency Citation||Summary||Type|
|MN - Hunting, Internet - § 97B.115. Computer-assisted remote hunting prohibition||M.S.A. § 97B.115||Minn. Stat. Ann. § 97B.115 (West)||This statute prohibits computer-assisted remote hunting within the state of Minnesota. The statute also prohibits the operation or selling of any computer software or service that allows a person to engage in computer-assisted hunting. A person who violates this section is guilty of a misdemeanor.||Statute|
|CA - Swap Meets - Chapter 10. Sale of Animals at Swap Meets.||West's Ann. Cal. Health & Safety Code § 122370 - 122374||CA HLTH & S § 122370 - 122374||This chapter (effective January 1, 2016) covers the sale of animals at swap meets in the state. A swap meet operator may allow a vendor to sell animals at a swap meet so long as the local jurisdiction has adopted standards for the care and treatment of the animals. The care and treatment of the animals must include that time that the animals are at the swap meet and during the transportation to and from the swap meet. The swap meet vendors must maintain, among other things, sanitary facilities for the animals, provide proper heating and ventilation in the facilities, provide adequate nutrition and humane care and treatment, and provide adequate space for all kept in the facilities. A swap meet vendor who offers for sale at a swap meet in a jurisdiction that has not authorized the sale is guilty of an infraction punishable by a fine up to $100. If a swap meet vendor is found guilty of this infraction for a subsequent time, he or she will be fined up to $500 per violation. Some exceptions include: events held by 4-H Clubs, Junior Farmers Clubs, Future Farmer Clubs, the California Exposition and State Fair, the sale of cattle on consignment at any public cattle sales market, and a public animal control agency or shelter.||Statute|
|DE - Veterinary - Chapter 33. Veterinarians.||24 Del.C. § 3300 - 3323||DE ST TI 24 § 3300 - 3323||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|
|AL - Cruelty - Alabama Consolidated Cruelty Statutes||Ala. Code 1975 § 13A-11-14 - 16; § 13A-11-240 to 247; § 13A–11–260 to 264; § 13A-12-4 - 6; § 3-1-8 to 29; § 2-15-110 to 114||AL ST § 13A-11-14 to 16; § 13A-11-240 to 247; § 13A–11–260 to 264; § 13A-12-4 - 6; § 3-1-8 to 29; § 2-15-110 to 114||
These Alabama provisions contain the state's anti-cruelty laws. The first section (under Article 1 of Chapter 11) provides that a person commits a Class A misdemeanor if he or she subjects any animal to cruel mistreatment, neglect (as long as he or she has custody of the animal), or kills or injures without good cause any animal belonging to another. However, if any person intentionally or knowingly violates Section 13A-11-14, and the act of cruelty or neglect involved the infliction of torture to the animal, that person has committed an act of aggravated cruelty and is guilty of a Class C felony. The next section (Article 11 of Chapter 11 entitled, "Cruelty to Cats and Dogs"), provides that a person commits the crime of cruelty to a dog or cat in the first degree if he or she intentionally tortures any dog or cat or skins a domestic dog or cat or offers for sale or exchange or offers to buy or exchange the fur, hide, or pelt of a domestic dog or cat. Cruelty to a dog or cat in the first degree is a Class C felony.
|Carroll v. County of Monroe||712 F.3d 649 (2nd Cir. 2013)||Upon executing a no-knock warrant by using a battering ram to break through the front door of the plaintiff’s home, police encountered the plaintiff’s dog. An officer claimed the dog was growling, barking, and quickly and aggressively approaching him. He then fired one shot from his shotgun, striking the dog and killing him. Prior to the execution of the warrant, the officers were aware that a dog would be present and did not discuss a plan for controlling the dog or neutralizing the dog by any non-lethal means. The plaintiff filed a lawsuit against the police officers and municipality, alleging violations of her Fourth Amendment rights. The court denied the defendants’ motion for summary judgement and held that the issue of whether the officer acted reasonably was a question for the jury.||Case|
|American Dog Owners Ass'n, Inc. v. Dade County, Fla.||728 F.Supp. 1533 (S.D.Fla.,1989)||
Associations of dog owners sued Dade, County, Florida seeking declaratory judgment that an ordinance that regulated “pit bull” dogs was unconstitutionally vague. Plaintiffs contend that there is no such breed as a pit bull, but rather a three breeds that this ordinance has mistakenly lumped together. The District Court held that ordinance sufficiently defined “pit bull” dogs by specifically referencing three breeds recognized by kennel clubs, including a description of the characteristics of such dogs, and provided a mechanism for verification of whether a particular dog was included. The uncontradicted testimony of the various veterinarians reflected that most dog owners know the breed of their dog and that most dog owners look for and select a dog of a particular breed.
|CA - Euthanasia - § 597w. Repealed by Stats.2005, c. 652 (A.B.1426), § 2||West's Ann. Cal. Penal Code § 597w (repealed)||CA PENAL § 597w (repealed)||This repealed statute prohibited the killing of any dog or cat by the use of any high-altitude decompression chamber or nitrogen gas.||Statute|
|Canada - Saskatchewan - Dangerous Animals||S.S. 2005, c. M-36.1, s. 374 - 380||This set of laws comprises the Saskatchewan, Canada dangerous animal laws. Under the Act, any person who owns an animal for the purpose of fighting, or trains, torments, badgers, baits or otherwise uses an animal for the purpose of causing or encouraging the animal to make unprovoked attacks on persons or domestic animals is guilty of an offence. In addition, a peace officer or designated officer may destroy any animal that he or she finds injuring or viciously attacking a person or a domestic animal. The Act outlines the actions that result in an animal being declared dangerous (i.e., chased a person in a vicious or threatening manner, bit a person or domestic animal without provocation, etc.) and the procedure to declare such an animal dangerous.||Statute|
|HI - Exotic Wildlife - Subchapter 2. Non-Domestic Animal Introductions||Haw. Admin. Rules (HAR) § 4-71-5 to § 4-71-10||HI ADC § 4-71-5 to § 4-71-10||This chapter addresses the introduction of feral and other non-domestic animals into Hawaii. The regulations specify certain animals prohibited for introduction into the state and the process for permitted introductions. Certain animals require a bond with the department.||Administrative|
|Brown by Brown v. Southside Animal Shelter, Inc.||158 N.E.3d 401 (Ind. Ct. App., 2020)||2020 WL 6066649 (Ind. Ct. App. Oct. 15, 2020)||This case from Indiana explores whether an animal shelter had a duty to inform a dog adopter of a dog's vicious propensities. Plaintiffs (the Browns) appeal the trial court's grant of summary judgment in favor of Southside Animal Shelter, Inc. (“Southside”). The case stems from the adoption of a dog from defendant animal shelter. In 2014, the dog was surrendered by its owner to a neighboring animal shelter because it did not get along with another dog. The dog was then adopted to another party where it attacked the family's two-year-old boy, causing significant injuries. The dog was then surrendered to the county animal shelter, who recorded the bite incident upon intake of the dog. After the mandated quarantine, the dog was eventually transferred to defendant animal shelter who was informed of the bite according to deposition testimony. However, during an 8-day aggression observation, the dog showed no signs of aggression. In late 2015, plaintiffs adopted the dog with a release that stated the history of the dog was unknown and the shelter was released from all liability resulting from illness or actions by the dog. Less than a month later, the dog attacked the Brown's six-year-old daughter causing injuries to her face. In the trial court action by the Browns against Southside, the court granted the defendant's motion of summary judgment based on the adoption release and dismissed the case. In this instant appeal before the Indiana Court of Appeals, the court focused on whether Southside owed a duty to the Browns to establish liability for the dog bite. The court found factual disputes remain as to whether Southside knew or should have known of the dog's past aggression and whether the knowledge from the volunteer who did intake for the dog imputed knowledge to the animal shelter. Additionally, the court indicated there was a question of fact whether Southside exercised reasonable care in evaluating the dog's behavioral history prior to adoption. Ultimately, the Court found that Southside had a duty to the Browns to inform them of the dog's past bite history, and factual issues relating to that duty preclude the granting of summary judgment. The case was reversed and remanded for further proceedings.||Case|