Results
Displaying 31 - 40 of 6638
| Title | Citation | Alternate Citation | Agency Citation | Summary | Type |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 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 | ||
| OH - Reynoldsburg - Breed - 505.35 Control and harboring of vicious or dangerous dogs and other vicious or dangerous animals. | REYNOLDSBURG, OH., CODE OF ORDINANCES §§ 505.01, 505.35 (1996) |
In Reynoldsburg, Ohio, no person shall own, keep, or harbor any vicious dog, which includes any pit bull dog. A violation is a misdemeanor of the second degree, and the vicious dog shall be seized, impounded, and humanely destroyed. |
Local Ordinance | ||
| US - AWA Regulations - Table of Contents | AWA Table of Contents | This file provides the heading to all of the USDA regulations under the Animal Welfare Act with links to the appropriate files. | Administrative | ||
| IN - Cattle Slaughter - MAHARASHTRA ANIMAL PRESERVATION (AMENDMENT) ACT, 1995 | The Act amends the Maharashtra Animal Preservation Act, 1976. While the 1976 Act prohibited the slaughter of cows, the Amendment additionally prohibits the slaughter of bulls and bullocks. | Statute | |||
| Church of the Lukumi Babalu Aye, Inc. v. City of Hialeah | 508 U.S. 520 (1993) | 113 S.Ct. 2217 |
Local ordinance prohibiting animal sacrifices under the guise of an anti-cruelty concern was an unconstitutional infringement on church's First Amendment rights because (1) ordinances were not neutral; (2) ordinances were not of general applicability; and (3) governmental interest assertedly advanced by the ordinances did not justify the targeting of religious activity. |
Case | |
| VA - Research Animals - § 32.1-162.32. Definitions | VA Code Ann. § 32.1-162.32 | This 2018 law states that no funds appropriated, granted, or awarded by the Commonwealth shall be used by any person or entity, public or private, to directly fund medically unnecessary research classified under pain and distress category E by the U.S. Department of Agriculture on animal subjects. “Medically unnecessary” means not carried out solely for the better health, welfare, or safety of the animal subject. | Statute | ||
| Animal Law Amendments and Significant Cases |
Animal Law Amendments and Significant Cases |
Policy | |||
| Journal of Animal Law Table of Contents Vol 6 |
Published by the students of Michigan State University College of LawJournal of Animal Law Vol. VI (2010)The table of contents is provided below. |
Policy | |||
| Perkins v. Hattery | 155 N.E.2d 73 (Ohio App. 1958) | 106 Ohio App. 361 |
This Ohio case examined the propriety of a county dog warden killing a dog that had killed a sheep nine hours before such seizure. The Court of Appeals held that dog warden was not authorized to destroy or otherwise dispose of a duly licensed dog found and seized by such warden upon the premises of its owner following a complaint made to the warden by the owner of sheep that the dog had killed certain of his sheep approximately nine hours before such seizure. |
Case | |
| Estis v. Mills | 318 So. 3d 449 (La. App. 2 Cir. 4/14/21) | 53,852 (La. App. 2 Cir. 4/14/21) | The Estis' sued the Mills for the wrongful killing and disposal of the Appellants’ German Shepherd. On appeal, the Appellants argue that the district court erred in permitting the Appellees to amend their original answer to now include an affirmative defense of immunity pursuant to La. R.S. 3:2654, which would relieve the Appellees of liability. Further, the Appellants contend that the district court erred in granting the Appellees’ motion for summary judgment, asserting that there remain genuine issues of material fact, and notwithstanding liability for the death of the dog, the court erred in dismissing the Appellees’ claim for conversion. The parties were neighbors whose property was separated by an enclosed pasture where the Mills used to keep horses. Despite requests from Mills, the Estis' dogs would enter the pasture and harass the horses. In 2017, Mills discovered the dog yet again in the pasture with the horses, so Mr. Mills shot, killed, and disposed of the dog. Subsequently, the Estis family filed suit seeking damages for the intentional killing of the dog and disposing of the dog in a bayou approximately ten miles away. The lower court granted a motion in favor of the Mills agreeing that they had immunity from suit under La. R.S. 3:2654.1. On appeal to this court, the Estises argue that the Mills waived the immunity under the statute because they failed to affirmatively plead the defense in their answer to the pleadings. This court found that immunity had not been affirmative pled as required by statute. Consequently, the Mills received permission to amend their answer and plead the immunity provision. Following granting of the Mills' second motion for summary judgment based on the immunity statute, the Estises appeal that decision. As to Estis' argument that leave to amend the answer was erroneously granted, this court first noted that determination whether to allow pleadings to be amended is discretionary and will not be reversed absent an abuse of discretion. The court found no evidence that there was bad faith in the decision to the amend the pleadings like delay. Further, there was no demonstration of prejudice from the granting of an amended answer. As to Estis' claim that summary judgment was erroneously granted, the court discussed a photograph that was submitted in evidence support showing a horse grazing with its back presented "indifferently" to the dog. The Mills countered with the evidence of an independent eyewitness to the incident who asserted that the dog harassed the horses. The court noted that issues of the credibility of evidence have no place in a summary judgment appeal. As a result, this court found that the lower court judge's statements that, in effect, weighed the credibility of the photograph versus the testimony of the witness were inappropriate. Thus, the lower court erred in granting the motion for summary judgment. Finally, the court evaluated Estis' conversion claims for the disposal of the dog's dead body. This court said that, [i]f the court finds that the killing of the dog falls under La. R.S. 3:2654, then the claim for conversion of the dog's body does not survive. However, if there were personal items on the dog at the time of the killing, such as a tracking collar or items of other value, then a conversion claim can be made for those items. If the court determines that the immunity statute does not apply, then the claim for conversion and any other applicable damages may apply." Thus, the trial court's judgment to allow the motion to amend the pleadings was affirmed, the granting of the summary judgment was reversed, and the dismissal of Estis' claims for conversion was reversed and remanded for further proceedings. | Case |