Results
| Title | Citation | Alternate Citation | Agency Citation | Summary | Type |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| SD - Cruelty - Consolidated Cruelty Statutes | S D C L § 9-29-11; S D C L § 40-1-1 - 41; S D C L § 40-2-1 - 9; S D C L § 43-39-12, 12.1; SDCL § 22-22-42, 43, 44 | SD ST § 9-29-11; SD ST § 40-1-1 - 41; SD ST § 40-2-1 - 9; SD ST § 43-39-12, 12.1; SD ST § 22-22-42, 43, 44 | These South Dakota statutes comprise the state's anti-cruelty and animal fighting provisions. "Animal," any mammal, bird, reptile, amphibian, or fish, except humans. "Cruelty” means to intentionally, willfully, and maliciously inflict gross physical abuse on an animal that causes prolonged pain, that causes serious physical injury, or that results in the death of the animal. Any person who subjects an animal to cruelty is guilty of a Class 6 felony. “Neglect,” means to fail to provide food, water, protection from the elements, adequate sanitation, adequate facilities, or care generally considered to be standard and accepted for an animal's health and well-being consistent with the species, breed, physical condition, and type of animal. Any person who neglects an animal is guilty of a Class 1 misdemeanor. Exemptions include regulated scientific experiments using live animals and the destruction of dangerous animals. | Statute | |
| US - Air travel, service animals - Subpart H. Services on Aircraft. | 14 C.F.R. § 382.117, § 382.51, and § 382.117 | Note: two of these sections were removed and reserved in 2020, effectively removing provisions related to service animals. Prior to it being removed, it previously stated that carriers must permit service animals to accompany passengers with disabilities. A carrier must permit the service animal to accompany the passenger with a disability at any seat in which the passenger sits, unless the animal obstructs an aisle or other area. The Department of Transportation used to allow identification of a service animal by the presence of harnesses, tags, or "the credible verbal assurances of a qualified individual with a disability using the animal." A carrier is was never required to accommodate certain unusual service animals (e.g., snakes, other reptiles, ferrets, rodents, and spiders). | Administrative | ||
| NH - Disaster - Chapter 21-P. Department of Safety. Homeland Security and Emergency Management. | N.H. Rev. Stat. § 21-P:37-a | NH ST § 21-P:37-a | In New Hampshire, state policy mandates that service animals and the people they serve be kept together in cases of emergency. State emergency planning and training must take that requirement into account. | Statute | |
| State ex rel. Miller v. DeCoster | 596 N.W.2d 898 (Iowa,1999) |
State of Iowa sued the owner of a hog confinement operation for violations of manure disposal and animal control regulations. |
Case | ||
| Petco Animal Supplies, Inc. v. Schuster | 144 S.W.3d 554 (Tex.App.-Austin,2004) |
In this Texas case, a dog owner brought an action against a Petco groomer for damages when her dog was killed after escaping from the pet groomer and running into traffic. The trial court entered a default judgment in favor of the owner and awarded damages. The Court of Appeals, held that the dog owner was not entitled to damages for mental anguish, absent pet store's ill-will, animus or desire to harm her personally. Moreover, the owner was not entitled to intrinsic value damages, lost wages, or counseling expenses. |
Case | ||
| IL - Farming - The Animal Welfare Regulations, Raising Pigs and Keeping Them for Agricultural Purposes), 2015 | Animal Welfare Regulations 2015 | Attached are the Animal Welfare Regulations from 2015 on confined pigs, available in both English and Hebrew. These Israeli regulations ban the use of gestation crates without exception (isolation is allowed for up to a week for insemination, but in a compartment wide enough to allow the sow to turn around) and farrowing crates are allowed only up to 2 weeks after the sow gave birth. | Statute | ||
| OK - Fur/Trapping - Part 5. Trapping | 29 Okl. St. Ann. § 5-501 - 504 | OK ST T. 29 § 5-501 - 504 | Oklahoma repealed two statutes related to trapping. Formerly, under these now repealed Oklahoma statutes, no person could trap on the land of another without a written permit. Only certain traps were allowed and traps must have been tended once every 24 hours. A conviction was punished by a fine of $25-200. The state kept the law that states that all persons engaged in the business of buying raw pelts must keep a daily register. A conviction is punished by a fine of $10-$50. | Statute | |
| MN - Equine Activity Liability - 604A.12. Livestock activities; immunity from liability. | M. S. A. § 604A.12 | MN ST § 604A.12 | This Minnesota statute comprises the state's equine activity liability statute. The act is not limited to equines, but rather extends protection from liability to participants engaged in "livestock activities." It is important to note that this provision and exemption from liability applies only to non-profit entities. Liability is not limited where the livestock professional knowingly used faulty tack, the person failed to reasonable care to protect the participant from a known, human-made dangerous condition, the person is a livestock activity sponsor and fails to comply with the notice requirement, or the act or omission of the person was willful or negligent. | Statute | |
| CITIZENS' RAPID-TRANSIT CO. v. DEW | 45 S.W. 790 (Tenn. 1898) | 40 L.R.A. 518, 100 Tenn. 317, 16 Pickle 317, 66 Am.St.Rep. 754 (1898) |
In 1898, this court affirmed a verdict for $200 after defendant train killed plaintiff’s dog. The Court reasoned that, "Large amounts of money are now invested in dogs, and they are extensively the subjects of trade and traffic. They are the negro's associates, and often his only property, the poor man's friend, and the rich man's companion, and the protection of women and children, hearthstones and hen roosts. In the earlier law books it was said that "dog law" was as hard to define as was "dog Latin." But that day has passed, and dogs have now a distinct and well established status in the eyes of the law." |
Case | |
| State v. Davidson | Slip Copy, 2006 WL 763082 (Ohio App. 11 Dist.), 2006-Ohio-1458 |
In this Ohio case, defendant was convicted of 10 counts of cruelty to animals resulting from her neglect of several dogs and horses in her barn. On appeal, defendant argued that the evidence was insufficient where the prosecution witness did not state the dogs were "malnourished" and said that a couple were reasonably healthy. The appellate court disagreed, finding that defendant mischaracterized the veterinarian's testimony and that there was no requirement to prove malnourishment. Further, the dog warden testified that she did not find any food or water in the barn and that the animals' bowls were covered with mud and feces. |
Case |