Results
| Title | Citation | Alternate Citation | Agency Citation | Summary | Type |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| NY - Larchmont - Breed - Article IV. Pit Bull. Terriers. | LARCHMONT, NY., CODE OF THE VILLAGE OF LARCHMONT §§ 97-19 - 97-26 (1998) |
In Larchmont, New York, no person may sell, purchase, possess, rent, lease or harbor a pit bull terrier with exceptions for registered dogs. Registration requirements include proof of $500,000 liability insurance, properly confining or securing the dog, and posting notice signs. Failure to comply could result in imprisonment of up to six month and/or a fine of up to $1,000. |
Local Ordinance | ||
| Perfect Puppy, Inc. v. City of East Providence | 98 F.Supp.3d 408 (D.R.I. 2015) | 2015 WL 1474560 (D.R.I. 2015) | Due to public concern about puppy mills, City passed an ordinance banning pet stores located within its limits from selling dogs and cats unless those animals were owned by a city animal shelter or animal control agency, humane society, or non-profit rescue organization and the pet store maintained those animals for the purpose of public adoption. In its Amended Complaint, Plaintiff, a pet store, raised numerous challenges to the ordinance under the Constitutions of the United States and of Rhode Island, claiming that it violated the dormant Commerce Clause, the Contract Clause, the Takings Clause, and Plaintiff's equal protection and due process rights, and that it was preempted by state statute. Plaintiff and Defendant both sought summary judgment to all challenges. Plaintiff's motion was DENIED and Defendant's motion was GRANTED to all counts in Plaintiff's Amended Complaint except Count Three, the Takings claim, which was REMANDED to the Rhode Island Superior Court. (2016: Affirmed in part and appeal dismissed in part at 807 F.3d 415, 417 (1st Cir. 2015)). | Case | |
| Costa Rica- Animal Fighting - Cock Fighting | LEY N.º 3 (1922) | This 1922 law, in Spanish, outlaws cock fighting in Costa Rica. | Statute | ||
| AZ - Dog - Arizona Consolidated Dog Laws | A. R. S. § 11-1001 - 1029; § 28-2422 - 2422.02; § 17-309 | AZ ST § 11-1001 - 1029; AZ ST § 28-2422 - 2422.02; AZ ST § 17-309 | These Arizona statutes comprise the laws relating to dogs and animal bites. Included are provisions related to registration, collaring, and vaccination of dogs. With regard to dangerous dogs, Arizona law provides that a person with knowledge of a dog's vicious propensity must also keep the dog in an enclosed yard or confined area with a sign indicating the dog's vicious tendencies. | Statute | |
| UK - Pets - Pet Animals Act 1951 | UK ST 1951 c 35 |
An Act establishing a licensing structure for pet shops in the United Kingdom . The Act sets forth certain conditions that local authorities may consider in determining whether or not to grant someone a pet shop license. In determining whether or not to grant a license, local authorities may investigate applicants and confirm that animals will be kept in a sanitary and suitable physical environment, that they will be fed and watered regularly, and that they will not be sold before they reach an appropriate age, among other factors. |
Statute | ||
| Ballas v Ballas | 3 Cal.Rptr. 11 (Cal. Dist. Ct. App. 1960) | 178 Cal.App.2d 570 |
In a divorce decree, lower court awarded dog and car to husband; the wife appealed. Appellate court found that distinction between community and separate property was unimportant and held that wife was entitled to the dog, but the husband remained entitled to the car. |
Case | |
| C.M. v. E.M. | --- N.Y.S.3d ----, 2023 WL 8360025 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. Nov. 28, 2023) | This is a family law case concerning, among other issues, the euthanasia of a family companion animal. Defendant argues that Plaintiff violated an order in place by putting the family dog down without reason, necessity, and justification, and that the dog was an emotional support animal whose custody had not been determined. Defendant also argues that plaintiff did not allow defendant the opportunity to spend time with the dog before it was put down, and that he suffered emotional distress due to the dog's death. The court found that the euthanasia of the family dog did not violate the order in place, because the companion animal was not classified as "property" or an "asset" under the order in place, and that animals are afforded additional protection under the Family Court Act. Whether the animal was put down unnecessarily could be considered animal cruelty, but that inquiry would need to be determined in a criminal proceeding, and criminal charges were not filed. Accordingly, the court held that plaintiff did not violate the order by euthanizing the family dog. | Case | ||
| Animal Welfare Institute v. Kreps | 561 F.2d 1002 (1977) | 183 U.S. App. D.C. 109 (1977) |
These appeals arise from a complaint filed in the District Court challenging a decision by the Government appellees to waive the moratorium imposed by the Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA) [FN1] so as to permit importation into the United States from South Africa of baby fur sealskins. We reverse, holding that appellants do have standing and that the Government's decision to waive the ban on importing baby fur sealskins violates the Marine Mammal Protection Act. |
Case | |
| New Jersey Society for Prevention of Cruelty to Animals v. Board of Education | 219 A.2d 200 (N.J. Super. Ct. 1966) |
In this action, the New Jersey Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, sought recovery against the Board of Education of the City of East Orange of penalties of the rate of $100 per alleged violation arising out of cancer-inducing experiments conducted by a student in its high school upon live chickens. By permission of the court, defendants, New Jersey Science Teachers’ Association and National Society for Medical Research Inc. were permitted by the court to participate as amicus curiae. The court found that because the board did not obtain authorization from the health department, an authorization which the health department did not think was needed, it was not thereby barred from performing living animal experimentation. The court concluded that the experiment at issue was not per se needless or unnecessary, and that such experiment did not fall within the ban of N.J. Stat. Ann. § 4:22-26 against needless mutilation, killing, or the infliction of unnecessary cruelty. |
Case | ||
| OR - Hunting - Division 64 . Privately Held Exotic and Game Mammals. | OR ADC 635-064-0000 to 0010 | OAR 635-064-0000 to 0010 | It is unlawful to hunt, kill, or attempt to hunt or kill, exotic mammals or game mammals held or obtained by private parties. Exceptions under the statute include the slaughter of such an animal for meat, leather, or fur production, euthanization of such an animal for scientific, health, safety or other valid husbandry concerns, or the department's Wildlife Division Director may authorize any person to hunt or kill such an animal if the Division Director determines it would be in the best interest of sound wildlife management. | Administrative |