Results
| Title | Citation | Alternate Citation | Summary | Type |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Comparative Laws Across the U.S. |
These comparative tables of laws are used to summarize an area of the law across all fifty states. The important aspects of each state's law are broken down into columns that can be viewed in the table. Topics range from state laws on dog tethering to reporting of animal cruelty to regulation of commercial pet breeders. Each table has a link that goes to the actual law from each state. This page will keep growing as new comparative tables are added. |
Basic page | ||
| Lei Municipal N 13131 de 18 de maio de 2001 | Lei Municipal Nº 13.131, de 18 de maio de 2001 | Art. 1º É livre a criação, propriedade, posse, guarda, uso e transporte de cães e gatos de qualquer raça ou sem raça definida no Município de São Paulo, desde que obedecida a legislação municipal, estadual e federal vigente. | Local Ordinance | |
| Haviland v. Butz | 543 F.2d 169 (D.C. Cir. 1976) | 543 F.2d 169, 36 A.L.R. Fed. 615, 177 U.S.App.D.C. 22 |
This case addresses whether the Secretary of Agriculture intended to include “animal acts” under the AWA. Animal acts are any performance of animals where such animals are trained to perform some behavior or action or are part of a show, performance, or exhibition. Defendant presented an animal act with dogs and ponies to paying audiences and occasionally appeared on commercial television. Defendant asserted that he did not “exhibit” animals simply by showing dogs and ponies and argued that the Secretary unconstitutionally added “animal acts” to the AWA. The court held that the inclusion of “animal acts” was authorized as“[t]he words ‘includes’ and ‘such as’ [in the AWA] point convincingly to the conclusion that the listing of types of exhibitions in the statutory text was intended to be but partial and illustrative.” |
Case |
| AK - Endangered Species - Endangered and Threatened Species | AS § 16.20.180 - 210 | AK ST § 16.20.180 - 210 | This Alaska statute provides that the state shall take measures to preserve the habitat of species or subspecies which, are threatened with extinction due to habitat loss, overutilization, disease, predation, or other human or natural factors. Species recognized as endangered or threatened also gain habitat protection on state lands. Taking of a listed species without permit incurs a misdemeanor. | Statute |
| Humane Society v. Merriam | 2007 WL 333309 (D.Minn.) |
Minnesota allowed trapping and snaring activities. Plaintiffs sued the state, arguing that this policy was causing the death of some endangered Canada lynx, in violation of the Endangered Species Act. The plaintiffs and defendants had the case dismissed after they agreed that Minnesota would seek a permit from the Fish and Wildlife Service under the Endangered Species Act, and that conservation measures would be taken for the protection of the lynx. |
Case | |
| IN - Animal Sacrifice - THE KERALA ANIMALS AND BIRDS SACRIFICES PROHIBITION ACT, 1968 | 20 of 1968 | This law, specific to the state of Kerala, prohibits the sacrifice of animals and birds within the precincts of temples. No persons may officiate at, perform, or participate in an animal sacrifice - it is a criminal offence. | Statute | |
| Non-US Topical Introductions | Policy | |||
| U.S. v. Lewis | 240 F.3d 866 (10th Cir. 2001) | 2001 U.S. App. LEXIS 859; 2001 Colo. J. C.A.R. 600 |
A jury convicted defendant of one count of violating the Lacey Act, 16 U.S.C.S. §§ 3371-3378. The jury found that defendant had violated Oklahoma law by capturing wild elk, holding them captive, and organizing at least one commercial elk hunt, without a license for those activities. The court affirmed. Violation of a state hunting law was an adequate basis for a Lacey Act prosecution. There was sufficient evidence to prove that the Oklahoma statute regarding commercial hunting licenses applied to defendant, and that defendant had knowledge of the statute's requirements. |
Case |
| Canada - Ontario - Dog Owners' Liability Act | R.S.O. 1990, c. D.16, s. 1 - 20(4) | This Ontario, Canada set of laws comprises the Dog Owners' Liability Act. The main thrust of the law is to establish that an owner is liable for damages if his or her dog bites or attacks another person or domestic animal. Proceedings may be commenced in the Ontario Court of Justice against an owner of a dog if it is alleged that the dog attacked or bitten another person or domestic animal, or if the dog has behaved in a manner that poses a menace to the safety of persons or domestic animals. A court may then order the destruction of the dog, or measures for more effective control of the dog (leash restraint, muzzling, etc.). The Act also bans the owning, breeding, importing, or transferring of pit bull dogs in Ontario, save for dogs grandfathered in before the Act took effect in 2005 (then the dog is a "restricted pit bull" subject to further laws). | Statute | |
| Wells v. Brown | 217 P.2d 995 (Cal.App.4.Dist. 1950) | 97 Cal.App.2d 361 (1950) |
In this California case, damages were assessed beyond the purchase price of a dog involved in a hit and run case where the defendant negligently ran over and killed a 15 month old pure-bred Waeimaraner. After the defendant ran over the dog, he shot the dog and buried it. The next morning he contacted the veterinarian listed on the collar, as well as the owner of the dog. The court upheld the jury verdict of $1,500 since the purchase price was determined to not reflect the market value at the time of the dog’s death. |
Case |