Results
| Title | Citation | Alternate Citation | Summary | Type |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 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 |
| Orangutana, Sandra s/ Habeas Corpus | Orangutana, Sandra s/ Habeas Corpus | This decision was decided on an appeal of the writ of habeas corpus brought on behalf of an orangutan named Sandra after it was denied in its first instance. Pablo Buompadre, President of the Association of Officials and Attorneys for the Rights of Animals (AFADA) brought a writ of habeas corpus against the Government of the Autonomous City of Buenos Aires and the City Zoological Garden of Buenos Aires on behalf of the hybrid of two different orangutan species, Sandra. AFADA sought the immediate release and relocation of Sandra to the primate sanctuary of Sorocaba, in the State of Sao Paulo in Brazil. AFADA argued that Sandra had been deprived illegitimately and arbitrarily of her freedom by the authorities of the zoo, and that her mental and physical health was at the time deeply deteriorated, with imminent risk of death. For the first time, basic legal rights were granted to an animal. In this case, Argentina’s Federal Chamber of Criminal Cassation ruled that animals are holders of basic rights. The Court stated that “from a dynamic and non-static legal interpretation, it is necessary to recognize [Sandra] an orangutan as a subject of rights, as non-human subjects (animals) are holders of rights, so it imposes her protection." | Case | |
| HI - Vehicle - § 291C-124. Obstruction to driver's view or driving mechanism | H R S § 291C-124 | HI ST § 291C-124 | This Hawaii law states that no person shall hold in his or her lap or allow to be in the driver's immediate area any animal that interferes with the "driver's control over the driving mechanism of the vehicle." | Statute |
| NJ - Fur - Unlawful Trapping (Article 2. Manner, Means and Times of Hunting) | NJSA 23:4-20 to 23:22.8 | NJ ST 23:4-20 to 23:22.8 | This set of New Jersey laws describes what constitutes "unlawful trapping." The section prohibits pole traps with a fine of $20 for each pole trap illegally used. Further, the law states that no person shall manufacture, sell, offer for sale, possess, import, transport or use an animal trap of the steel-jaw leghold type. A person using a steel-jaw leghold type animal trap shall be fined not less than $50.00 nor more than $250.00 for a first offense; not less than $250.00 nor more than $500.00 for a second offense; not less than $500.00 nor more than $2,500.00 for a third or subsequent offense. | Statute |
| Martinez v. State | 48 S.W.3d 273 (Tex. App. 2001). |
A jury may infer a culpable mental state ("intentionally and knowingly") from the circumstances surrounding the offense of cruelty to animals. |
Case | |
| Hyland v. Borras | 719 A.2d 662 (N.J.Super.A.D., 1998) |
Plaintiff Heather Hyland brought this action for damages after defendants' dog, an American bulldog, trespassed onto plaintiff's property and attacked her ten year old shih tzu, causing serious injuries to the dog. Defendants appeal the award of "repair costs" ($2,500) in excess of the dog's market value or "replacement cost" ($500). In upholding the award, the court distinguished companion animals from other personal property, finding that market value fails to take into account the owner's relationship to the animal. |
Case | |
| Colombia, LEY 1801 DE 2016, National Code of Police and Coexistence | LEY 1801 DE 2016 | This is the National Code of Police and coexistence. Under Title XIII entitled, “Of the Relationship with Animals," this law regulates concerns to the relationship of humans and domestic animals, the responsibilities that owners have towards their pets, and the responsibilities pet owners have towards society. It regulates topics such as domestic animals in public places and public transportation; the creation of animal welfare centers in districts and municipalities to provide attention to abandoned animals; behaviors that pet owners must avoid to not disrupt the healthy and peaceful coexistence of the members of society; and the general provisions regarding the treatment of potentially dangerous dogs. | Statute |