Results
| Title | Citation | Alternate Citation | Summary | Type |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| MD - Veterinary - State Board of Veterinary Medical Examiners. | MD Code, Agriculture, § 2-301 - 316 | MD AGRIC § 2-301 - 316 | 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 |
| People v. Preston | 300 N.W. 853 (Mich. 1941) | 299 Mich. 484 (Mich. 1941) |
Defendant was convicted of wilfully and maliciously killing three cows. The issue considered on review was: "Are the circumstances and testimony here, aliunde the confession of the respondent, sufficient to create such a probability that the death of the cattle in question was intentionally caused by human intervention and to justify the admission in evidence of the alleged confession of the respondent?" The court held that the evidence was sufficient to sustain the conviction. |
Case |
| Colombia - Farm animals - Decreto 2113, 2017 | DECRETO 2113 DE 2017 | This decreto adds a chapter to Title 3, Part 14 of Book 2 of Decreto 1071, 2015 “Decreto Único Reglamentario del Sector Administrativo Agropecuario, Pesquero y de Desarrollo Rural.” This Decreto establishes the dispositions and requirements for the welfare of species for agricultural production. | Statute | |
| MS - Ecoterrorism - Animal Research or Exhibiting Facilities Protection Act | Miss. Code Ann. § 69-29-301 to 69-29-315 | MS ST § 69-29-301 to 69-29-315 | This section comprises Mississippi's Animal Research or Exhibiting Facilities Protection Act. The act prohibits a person, without the effective consent of the owner, to acquire or otherwise exercise control over an animal facility with the intent to deprive the owner of the facility, animal or property and to disrupt or damage the enterprise conducted at the animal facility. A person is also prohibited from entering and remaining concealed at a facility with the intent to damage or disrupt the facility. Violation for damaging a facility is a fine of up to $10,000 and/or imprisonment for up to 3 years. Violation for illegal entry with an intent to damage or disrupt the facility results in a fine of up to $5,000 and/or imprisonment up to 1 year. | Statute |
| People v. Hock | 919 N.Y.S.2d 835 (N.Y.City Crim.Ct., 2011) | 2011 WL 1225699 (N.Y.City Crim.Ct.) |
Defendant was denied his motion to set aside convictions under New York animal cruelty statute. The Criminal Court, City of New York, held that the 90 day period for prosecuting a Class A misdemeanor had not been exceeded. It also held that the jury was properly instructed on the criminal statute that made it a misdemeanor to not provide an animal with a sufficient supply of good and wholesome air, food, shelter, or water. It would be contrary to the purpose of the law and not promote justice to require that all four necessities be withheld for a conviction. |
Case |
| IL - Assistance Animals - Assistance Animal/Guide Dog Laws | 510 ILCS 70/2.01c, 2.01d, 4.03, 4.04, 7.15; 720 ILCS 5/48-8; 730 I.L.C.S. 5/3-12-16; 740 I.L.C.S. 13/1, 13/5, 13/10; 775 I.L.C.S. 30/1 - 6; 510 ILCS 5/15.1; 105 I.L.C.S. 5/14-6.02; 210 ILCS 125/32; 625 ILCS 60/5, 60/15; 775 ILCS 5/3-104.1 | 310 I.L.C.S. 120/1 - 120/120 | The following statutes comprise the state's relevant assistance animal and guide dog laws. | Statute |
| Pagel v. Yates | 471 N.E.2d 946 (Ill.App. 4 Dist.,1984) | 128 Ill.App.3d 897, 84 Ill.Dec. 180 (Ill.App. 4 Dist.,1984) |
Horse owner sued breeder for negligence and conversion after breeder returned the wrong mare. On issue of damages, Appellate Court held that evidence was insufficient to support the jury award because 1) evidence of value of mare’s offspring four years after conversion was irrelevant and prejudicial; 2) trial court's instruction to jury allowed recovery for the horse's unborn offspring as well as fair market value of horse in foal, which permitted a double recovery; and 3) owner could not recover his expenses after he learned of switch and made no effort to resolve the problem because he had duty to avoid further loss. |
Case |
| IN - Domestic Violence - 34-26-5-9 Ex parte orders; authority and jurisdiction of court; relief available | I.C. 34-26-5-9 | IN ST 34-26-5-9 | This Indiana law allows a court to grant ex parte orders for protection in cases of domestic or family violence. Effective July 1, 2017, a court may grant a petitioner the exclusive possession, care, custody, or control of any animal owned, possessed, kept, or cared for by the petitioner, respondent, minor child of either the petitioner or respondent, or any other family or household member. Additionally, the court may prohibit a respondent from removing, transferring, injuring, concealing, harming, attacking, mistreating, threatening to harm, or otherwise disposing of an animal described in subdivision (c)(5). | Statute |
| People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, Inc. v. United States Department of Agriculture | 194 F. Supp. 3d 404 (E.D.N.C. 2016), aff'd sub nom. People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals v. United States Dep't of Agric., 861 F.3d 502 (4th Cir. 2017) | 2016 WL 3902745 (E.D.N.C. July 12, 2016) | In this case, People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, In.c (PETA) filed a complaint against the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) for violating the Administrative Procedure Act (APA). PETA argued that the USDA had violated the APA because the USDA has a “policy, pattern, and practice or rubber stamping” exhibitor license renewals to noncompliant animal exhibitors. Under the APA, any agency action that is found to be “arbitrary, capricious, or an abuse of discretion” must be held unlawful by the courts. The court in this case reviewed the facts of the case in accordance with the Chevron decision. According to the court in Chevron, a court must give deference to an agency if: (1) "the statutory language is silent or ambiguous with respect to the question posed," or (2) "the agency’s answer is based on a permissible construction of the statute.” The statutory language that the court considered in this case was the Animal Welfare Act (AWA) that regulate the transportation, handling, and treatment of animals. Ultimately, the court determined that the AWA was silent with regard to exhibitor renewals and therefore moved to the second step of the Chevron decision. The court found that the AWA does not prohibit the USDA’s administrative renewal process for animal exhibitor licenses. The court held that the USDA did not act arbitrarily or abuse its description when it chose to renew certain exhibitor licenses. As a result, the court rejected PETA’s claim against the USDA. | Case |
| ME - Pet Trusts - Chapter 4. Creation, Validity, Modification and Termination of Trust. | 18-B M. R. S. A. § 408 | ME ST T. 18-B § 408 | This statute represents Maine's pet trust law. The provides that a trust may be created to provide for the care of an animal alive during the settlor's lifetime. The trust terminates upon the death of the animal or, if the trust was created to provide for the care of more than one animal alive during the settlor's lifetime, upon the death of the last surviving animal. The comment following the text of the statute clarifies what types of animal-related activities qualify as non-charitable versus charitable trusts. | Statute |