Results
| Title | Citation | Alternate Citation | Summary | Type |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| England - Slaughter - The Welfare of Animals (Slaughter or Killing) (Amendment) (England) Regulations 2012 | 2012 No. 501 | These Regulations amended the Welfare of Animals (Slaughter or Killing) Regulations 1995. Provisions extend the range of birds that can be killed by gas mixtures in specific circumstances, and extend the time limits under which a prosecution may be brought. | Statute | |
| MI - Melvindale - Breed - DIVISION 5. - PIT BULL TERRIERS | MELVINDALE, MI., CODE OF ORDINANCES §§ 4-136 - 4-148 (2006) |
In Melvindale, Michigan, there is a ban on owning or keeping pit bull dogs, with an exception for dogs licensed as of April 1990. Such dogs are allowed, as long as the owner complies with certain requirements, such as confinement or leash and muzzle, $100,000 liability insurance, and an ID number tattoo. A violation may result in a misdemeanor conviction punishable by a fine of up to $100 and imprisonment of up to 30 days. |
Local Ordinance | |
| Carbasho v. Musulin | 618 S.E.2d 368 (W. Va. 2005) |
Owner's dog was killed by a negligently driven car. The owner sued to recover damages for loss of companionship. The court held that dogs are personal property and damages for sentimental value, mental suffering, and emotional distress are not recoverable. |
Case | |
| SD - Hunting - 41-1-8. Interference with lawful hunting, trapping, or fishing prohibited--Violation as misdemeanor | S D C L § 41-1-8 to 10 | SD ST § 41-1-8 to 10 | This South Dakota law reflects the state's hunter harassment provision. The law prohibits a person from intentionally interfering with any person or group of persons lawfully engaged in the process of taking or attempting to take any game or fish. This includes actions specifically intended to harass and any activity intended to scare or disturb game with the specific intent of preventing their lawful taking. Violation is a Class 2 misdemeanor. | Statute |
| Thompson v. Hancock County | 539 N.W.2d 181 (Iowa 1995) |
In this case, the Supreme court of Iowa held that hog confinement buildings were agricultural buildings and thus exempt from county zoning ordinances. |
Case | |
| Stanton v. State | 395 S.W.3d 676 (Tenn. 2013) | 2013 WL 239099 (Tenn.2013) |
The defendant, a self-employed oil distributor, was charged with 16 counts of animal cruelty for intentionally or knowingly failing to provide food and care for his horses. After being denied a petition for pretrial division and a petition for a writ of certiorari, the defendant appealed to the Supreme Court of Tennessee, who granted the defendant permission to appeal, but affirmed the lower court's decision that the assistant district attorney general did not abuse his discretion and that the trial court did not err in denying the defendant's petition for writ of certiorari. |
Case |
| Anti-cruelty laws that restrain future ownership of animals | This map surveys state laws that allow sentencing courts to restrict future ownership or possession of animals by those convicted of animal cruelty, commonly called "Possession Bans." To date (2024), it appears that 39 states have such laws. Generally, these laws apply only to felony convictions except for a couple states. With some state laws like Indiana, Missouri, and Texas, the possession ban covers only the animals who were subject to the cruelty and any other animals possessed by defendant at the time of the offense. Kansas' law makes those convicted of dogfighting who own dogs within five years of conviction a separate crime. Uniquely, Kentucky's laws restrain ownership if the crime involved sexual assault of an animal or if the animal at issue was an equine. The law does not prevent ownership of future animals. Most laws do address the issue of future animals, though. The most common number of years under which ownership of animals is enjoined by the court is five (5) years. However, California allows ten (10) years for a felony conviction and Delaware expands this to fifteen (15) years. Several states including Maine, Michigan, and Washington enable courts to impose permanent relinquishment of the ability to own or possess animals. The majority of states allow the sentencing court to affix a “reasonable” term of restricted ownership. Some states describe this as a term the judge feels “necessary” or “appropriate.” A few states even limit the ability of the defendant to work with animals in current or future jobs for certain convictions. These laws are distinguished from pre-conviction forfeiture laws that authorize law enforcement or humane officers to impound animals subject to suspected cruel treatment during the pendency of the proceedings. | State map | ||
| OK - Cruelty - Animal Facilities Protection Act/Consolidated Cruelty Laws | 21 Okl. St. Ann. 1680 - 1700; 21 Okl. St. Ann. § 886 | OK ST T. 21 1680 - 1700; OK ST T. 21 § 886 | These Oklahoma statutes comprise the Animal Protection Act. The main thrust of the act is the prohibition of animal cruelty and animal fighting. Included in the provisions are the definitions (including the statutory definition of "animal") and the prohibited acts related to animal facilities. The statute further provides that no one shall intentionally damage the enterprise conducted at an animal facility (including releasing animals there with the intent to deprive the owner of such facility). Violation incurs a felony with a fine of up to $5,000 or imprisonment up to seven years or both. | Statute |
| State ex rel Del Monto v. Woodmansee | State ex rel Del Monto v. Woodmansee, 72 N.E.2d 789 (Ohio 1946). |
In an action in mandamus, relator property owner sought a writ ordering respondent building commissioner of the City of Euclid to issue a building permit for the construction of a store building. The store building would be used for the slaughter of chicken. The state tired to oppose the building by stating the use would be against Ohio's cruelty to animal statute. The Court ruled that the term "animals" as thus used meant a quadruped, not a bird or fowl. Thus, the court ruled in favor of the property owner in his mandamus action against the commissioner. |
Case | |
| Coy v. Ohio Veterinary Med. Licensing Bd. | 2005 Ohio App. LEXIS 756 | 2005 Ohio 773 |
A veterinarian's license was revoked by the Ohio Veterinarian Medical Licensing Board and the vet challenged the revocation of his license. The trial court found the vet guilty of gross incompetence and he appealed claiming there was no definition of gross incompetence in the statute. The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court holding no specific definition was required. |
Case |