Results
| Title | Citation | Alternate Citation | Agency Citation | Summary | Type | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Chile - Research animals - Ley No. 21.646 (2024) | Ley No. 21.646, 2024 | This law modifies the sanitary code and Law 20380 (animal protection law) to prohibit animal testing in Chile and the sale, trade, importation, and introduction of products that have been tested on animals into the country. | Statute | |||||||||
| State v. Gaines | 64 Ohio App. 3d 230 (Oh App. 1990) | 64 Ohio App. 3d 230 |
Defendant, who pleaded guilty to 2 counts of dogfighting, challenged the constitutionality of the dogfighting statute and appealed a court-imposed forfeiture of cash and other seized items. The Court of Appeals ruled that: (1) dogfighting statute was not unconstitutionally vague or overbroad; (2) statute did not violate equal protection or constitute cruel and unusual punishment on ground that violation constitutes fourth-degree felony while violation of statute prohibiting other animal fights is only a fourth-degree misdemeanor; and (3) despite guilty plea, forfeiture of cash and other items was erroneous absent establishment of direct connection with defendant's illegal dogfighting activities.
|
Case | ||||||||
| State v. Hershey | 515 P.3d 899 (2022) | 370 Or. 200 (Or., 2022) | Defendant's animals (22 dogs, three horses, and seven chickens) were impounded in 2017 after he was charged with second-degree animal neglect. The district attorney asked the court for immediate forfeiture of the animals or for defendant to post a bond for care within 72 hours of a hearing on the matter. In response, defendant filed a motion for jury trial. The lower court denied defendant's motion and the court of appeals affirmed the ruling. Here, the Oregon Supreme court considers whether a special statutory proceeding brought under ORS 167.347 provides a right to a jury trial in accordance with Article I, section 17, of the Oregon Constitution. The Court first looked at the nature of the relief in the statute insofar as whether such relief is equitable or legal. The Court found the purpose of the statute is mainly to provide unjust enrichment of the owner when the owner does not pay for the costs of their animals' care. As such, the court found the relief was equitable in nature. This was supported by examining the legislative history, which revealed the law was enacted in the wake of one county incurring approximately $100,000 in a large animal abuse case. In addition, the Court found the instant statute similar in nature to laws related to costs care of institutionalized humans in the early 20th Century. Those proceedings to enforce payment of the legal obligation to care for someone under government care were determined not to require jury trials. The court rejected defendant's reliance on two cases dealing with in rem civil forfeiture in a criminal proceeding as the purpose of those actions are to impose consequences for past conduct rather than prevent inequitable shifting of costs of care. The purpose of ORS 167.347 is to equitably share costs between the county and the defendant and to protect against unjust enrichment of defendant. The decision of the Court of Appeals and the order of the circuit court were affirmed. | Case | ||||||||
| NH - Exotic Pets - Chapter Fis 800 Definitions (for importation and possession of wildlife) | NH ADC FIS 801.01 - 26 | N.H. Code Admin. R. Fis 801.01 - 26 | These following regulations provide the definitions for the terms used in Chapter Fis 800: The Importation, Possession and Use of All Wildlife of the New Hampshire Code of Administrative Regulations. | Administrative | ||||||||
| NM - Assistance Animal - Assistance Animal/Guide Dog Laws | NMSA 1978, § 28-7-3 to 28-7-5; § 28-11-1 to 28-11-6; § 77-1-15.1; § 65-7-16 | NM ST §§ 28-7-3 to 28-7-5; § 28-11-1 to 28-11-6; § 77-1-15.1; § 65-7-16 | The following statutes comprise the state's relevant assistance animal and guide dog laws. | Statute | ||||||||
| MD - Exotic pets - Subtitle 6. Crimes Relating to Animals. | MD Code, Criminal Law, § 10-621 | MD CRIM LAW § 10-621 | Under this Maryland law, a person may not import into the State, offer for sale, trade, barter, possess, breed, or exchange the following species of animals: foxes, skunks, raccoons, bears, caimans, alligators, crocodiles, wild cats, wolves, nonhuman primates, and venomous snakes. Animal sanctuaries, AWA licensed facilities, those holding valid permits from the Department of Natural Resources, and veterinarians are exempted. This section does not prohibit a person who had lawful possession of an animal listed above on or before May 31, 2006, from continuing to possess that animal if the person provided written notification to the local animal control authority on or before August 1, 2006. Violation results in a fine and seizure of the animal(s). | Statute | ||||||||
| Derecho Animal Volume 2 Núm 1 |
|
Policy | ||||||||||
| Saxton v. Pets Warehouse | 180 Misc.2d 377 (N.Y. 1999) | 691 N.Y.S.2d 872, 41 UCC Rep.Serv.2d 781, 1999 N.Y. Slip Op. 99282 |
In this small claims action, the plaintiff purchased an unhealthy dog from defendant that died soon after purchase. The court held that the plaintiff is not limited to the remedies provided by General Business Law § 753 (1), which sets forth a consumer's right to a refund and/or reimbursement for certain expenses incurred in connection with the purchase of an unhealthy dog or cat, as plaintiff's dog came within the definition of "goods" as set forth in UCC 2-105 and defendant was a "merchant" within the meaning of UCC 2- 104 (1). Accordingly, plaintiff could recover damages pursuant to UCC 2-714 on the theory that defendant breached the implied warranty of merchantability. The case was remanded for a new trial to solely on the issue of damages limited to any sales tax paid by plaintiff that was not reimbursed by the insurance policy and the reasonable cost of veterinary expenses incurred. |
Case | ||||||||
| Scotland - Animal Welfare - Animals and Wildlife (Penalties, Protections and Powers) (Scotland) Act 2020 | 2020 asp 14 | This Act increased the maximum penalty for the most serious animal welfare and wildlife crimes in Scotland to five years imprisonment and unlimited fines. This includes penalties under the The Animal Health and Welfare (Scotland) Act 2006, the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981, The Protection of Badgers Act 1992, the Wild Mammals (Protection) Act 1996, the Deer (Scotland) Act 1996, and other animal welfare related legislation in Scotland. These include the offence of unnecessary suffering and animal fighting. The Act also incorporated 'Finn's Law' which will prevent those that harm service animals in the course of their duties from claiming that they did so in self-defence. The Act also creates new powers (by way of future secondary legislation) to impose fixed penalty notices for less serious offences. Further, the Act restricts licensing for the killing of seals, and provides mountain hares with general protection from killing. | Statute | |||||||||
| Assal v. Barwick (Kidwell) | A circuit court upheld and enforced a divorce settlement that granted the husband visitation of the couple's dog for one month each summer. After the dog had gotten loose during a past visit and the husband had driven with the dog in the trunk of his car, however, the wife had refused to turn the dog over. The husband later abandoned his fight for visitation with the dog. During the proceedings, however, the Animal Legal Defense Fund filed this amicus curiae brief to urge the court to include in its consideration the needs and interests of the dog. The attached brief sets forth reported case decisions and rulings of other courts that have grappled with the view that companion animals are more than mere chattel. | Pleading |