Results
| Title | Citation | Alternate Citation | Agency Citation | Summary | Type |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| MN - Hunting - Chapter 97A. Game and Fish. General Provisions. | M. S. A. § 97A.037 | MN ST § 97A.037 | This law reflects Minnesota's hunter harassment provision. This law prohibits the intentional interference with the taking of wild animals. A person is also prohibited from disturbing wild animals to prevent or disrupt their lawful taking. Further, a person who has the intent to violate this law may not enter or remain on public lands or private land without permission of the owner. A person must obey the order of a peace officer to stop the harassing conduct that violates this section if the officer observes the conduct. Violation of this subdivision is a misdemeanor. | Statute | |
| BREEDLOVE v. HARDY | 110 S.E. 358 (Va. 1922) | 132 Va. 11 (1922) |
This Virginia case concerned the shooting of plaintiff's companion animal where defendant alleged that the dog was worrying his livestock. The court reversed judgment for defendant, finding that defendant’s act of killing dog while not engaged in the act of “worrying the livestock,” was not authorized within the statute. |
Case | |
| State v. Conte | Slip Copy, 2007 WL 3257378 (Ohio App. 10 Dist.), 2007 -Ohio- 5924 | Not Reported in N.E.2d, 2007 WL 3257378 |
Plaintiff-appellant, State of Ohio/City of Bexley, appeals from a judgment of the Franklin County Municipal Court dismissing the indictment against defendant-appellee, Joseph Conte. Appellant cited appellee for violating Bexley City Code 618.16(e), entitled “Dangerous and Vicious Animal.” Two days later, animal control then issued another citation against appellee for allowing his dog to run free without restraint in violation of Bexley City Code Section 618.16(e). In granting appellee's motion to dismiss, the trial court struck down a portion of Bexley City Code 618.16(e) as unconstitutional that provided that the owner of a vicious or dangerous animal shall not permit such animal to run at large. On appeal, this court found that the ordinance was not unconstitutional where the prosecution must prove at trial that the dog is vicious or dangerous as an element of the offense. |
Case | |
| ME - Breeder - Chapter 701. Rules Governing Animal Welfare | Code Me. R. 01-001 Ch. 701, § I - VII | ME ADC 01-001 Ch. 701, § I - VII | The following Maine regulations reveal the state's requirements for the proper care/housing of animals at pet stores, kennels, and animal shelters. These regulations also establish civil penalties for pet stores, kennels, or animal shelters who violate either the following regulations or Chapter 719 of Title 7 of the Maine Revised Statutes Annotated. | Administrative | |
| CO - Restaurant - 25-4-1615. Pet dogs in retail food establishments | C.R.S.A. § 25-4-1615 | CO ST § 25-4-1615 | This 2020 Colorado law allows a person to have a pet dog in an outdoor dining area of a retail food establishment if several conditions are met (including, but not limited to, the presence of a separate entrance for the dogs and their owners, requiring owners to keep dogs on leashes or in pet carriers, and not allowing the dogs on furniture or fixtures). The law allows a retail food establishment to elect not to allow dogs in its outdoor dining area. In addition, the governing body of a city, county, or city and county may prohibit the presence of pet dogs in outdoor dining areas of retail food establishments located within the governing body's jurisdiction | Statute | |
| MA - Disaster Planning - Massachusetts Emergency Animal Annex | Comprehensive Emergency Management Plan (CEMP) | The Comprehensive Emergency Management Plan (CEMP) is an all hazards plan developed to address the natural and man-caused hazards that threaten Massachusetts. The CEMP and ESF Annexes describes the system that will be used in Massachusetts to prevent, prepare for, respond to, and recover from an emergency or disaster. It also identifies and assigns specific areas of responsibility for coordinating resources to support the response to an emergency or disaster. The Massachusetts Emergency Support Function 11 (MAESF-11) Agriculture, Animals and Natural Resources provides a framework for coordination and cooperation across state agencies and other organizations regarding the control and support of animal sheltering, search, rescue, recovery, and reunification needs and activities before, during, and after a disaster, or emergency. | Administrative | ||
| NJ - Ordinances - Chapter 19. Dogs, Taxation and Liability for Injuries Caused by | NJSA 4:19-36 | NJ ST 4:19-36 | This New Jersey statute provides that the provisions of the dangerous dog act shall supersede any law, ordinance, or regulation concerning vicious or potentially dangerous dogs, any specific breed of dog, or any other type of dog inconsistent with this act enacted by any municipality, county, or county or local board of health. | Statute | |
| MA - Domestic Violence - § 11. Possession, care and control of domesticated animal owned by persons involved in certain protecti | M.G.L.A. 209A § 11 | MA ST 209A § 11 | This Massachusetts law, effective October of 2012, allows the court to order the possession, care and control of any domesticated animal owned, possessed, leased, kept or held by either party or a minor child residing in the household to the plaintiff or petitioner in a no contact or restraining order. The court may order the defendant to refrain from abusing, threatening, taking, interfering with, transferring, encumbering, concealing, harming or otherwise disposing of such animal. | Statute | |
| Cross v. State | 646 S.W.2d 514 (Tex. App. 1982). |
"Necessary food" in the animal cruelty statute means food sufficient in both quantity and quality to sustain the animal in question. |
Case | ||
| Houseman v. Dare | 966 A.2d 24 (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 2009) | 405 N.J.Super. 538 (2009) |
An engaged, live-in couple purchased a dog together and listed both of their names on the American Kennel Club registration. While speaking to his girlfriend about ending the relationship, the boyfriend promised her that she could keep the dog, but failed to fulfill that promise; the court required specific enforcement of that promise. In addition, the court found that dogs possess special subjective value similar to "heirlooms, family treasures, and works of art." |
Case |