Results
| Title | Citation | Alternate Citation | Summary | Type |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| ID - Idaho Falls - Title 1: General Provisions & Title 5: Criminal Code (Chapter 9: Animals) | City Code of the City of Idaho Falls §§ 1-3-5, 5-1-3, 5-9-3 to 5-9-4 |
In Idaho Falls, Idaho, any person who causes an animal to fight for amusement, or for gain, or to worry or injure each other; and any person who permits the same to be done on any premises under his charge or control; and any person who aids, abets or is present as a spectator is guilty of a misdemeanor. Additionally, any person who owns, possesses, keeps or trains any bird or animal, with the intent that such bird or animal engage in an exhibition of fighting, or any person who is present at any place, building or tenement, where preparations are being made for an exhibition of fighting of birds or animals, with the intent to be present at such exhibition, is guilty of a misdemeanor. Any person violating these provisions may be punished by imprisonment for a term not exceeding six (6) months, or by a fine not exceeding one thousand dollars ($1,000), or by both. |
Local Ordinance | |
| Allanson v. Toncich | 2002 WL 1897936 (Austrailia) | 2002 WASCA 216 |
Appeal uphold the judgement against the dog owner for damages, but recalculates damages upward. |
Case |
| CA - Declaw, debark - § 1942.7. Conditions on occupancy based on declawing or devocalizing animals | West's Ann.Cal.Civ.Code § 1942.7 | CA CIVIL § 1942.7 | This California law prohibits any owner or property manager from advertising a requirement, refusing occupancy of, or otherwise requiring a prospective tenant to declaw or devocalize any animal allowed on the premises. A city attorney, district attorney, or other law enforcement prosecutorial entity has standing to enforce this section and may sue for declaratory relief or injunctive relief for a violation of this section. Violation results in a civil penalty of not more than $1,000. | Statute |
| WV - Domestic Violence - § 48-27-503. Permissive provisions in protective order. | W. Va. Code, §§ 48-27-503; 48-27-702 | WV ST §§ 48-27-503; 48-27-702 | In West Virginia, the terms of a protective order may include awarding the petitioner the exclusive care, possession, or control of any animal owned, possessed, leased, kept or held by either the petitioner or the respondent or a minor child residing in the residence or household of either the petitioner or the respondent and prohibiting the respondent from taking, concealing, molesting, physically injuring, killing or otherwise disposing of the animal and limiting or precluding contact by the respondent with the animal. Furthermore, West Virginia mandates that law enforcement officers who suspect animal cruelty during an alleged incident of domestic violence must report that suspicion and the grounds therefor to the county humane officer within twenty-four hours of the response to the alleged incident of domestic violence. | Statute |
| SC - Ecoterrorism - Chapter 21. Farm Animal and Research Facilities Protection Act. | Code 1976 § 47-21-10 to 90 | SC ST § 47-21-10 to 90 | The set of law comprises South Carolina's Farm Animal and Research Facilities Protection Act. A person commits an offense if, without the effective consent of the owner, the person exercises control over an animal facility or the property located there, or if that person damages the facility or its property. A person also commits an offense if he or she enters a facility without the effective consent of the owner and remains concealed with the intent to disrupt or damage the enterprise conducted at the animal facility. Violation for disruption or damage to a facility or its property is a misdemeanor with a fine of up to $10,000 and/or 3 years imprisonment. Violation for illegal entry is a misdemeanor with a fine up to $5,000 and/or 1 year imprisonment. | Statute |
| Ray and Marie Powers v. Wesley and Mary Tincher |
While plaintiff’s complaint and demand focus on the threats and alleged actions of trespass by defendants, the Common Pleas Court’s decision focuses instead on the defendant’s request for injunctive relief based on a nuisance violation. Specifically, defendants apparently alleged that plaintiff’s keeping of over one hundred roosters constituted a private nuisance. Relying on a case of similar facts, the court held that plaintiffs’ keeping of over one hundred roosters for the purpose of cockfighting constituted a private nuisance. |
Pleading | ||
| Barrington v. Colbert | CO/1273/97 |
A net was placed over one opening of a land drain and a terrier dog sent into the other entrance with the objective of prompting a fox to run into the net. Magistrates acquitted the defendants of doing an act causing unnecessary suffering to the fox contrary to the Protection of Animals Act 1911, s 1(1)(a). The Divisional Court dismissed the prosecutor's appeal, holding that, applying Rowley v Murphy [1964] 2 QB 43, the fox was not a "captive animal" within the meaning of s 15(c) of the 1911 Act, mere confinement not being sufficient, and was therefore outside the protection of that Act. |
Case | |
| Casebook Update | The attached pdf file provides updated material for David Favre, Animal Law, 3rd edition (2019). This material may be accessed three different ways. The first list immediately below is of new material from newest to oldest. A second set is the table of contents with new material integrated. A third list is an index | Policy | ||
| England - Licensing - The Animal Welfare (Licensing of Activities Involving Animals) (England) Regulations 2018 | Animal Welfare Act (Licensing) Regulations 2018 | Legislation requiring businesses involving animals in England to obtain a licence to show they are meeting the welfare needs of the animals in their care. Includes dog kennels, cat boarding, dog breeders, pet sellers, horse riding schools and animal exhibitors. | Statute | |
| VA - Licenses - § 3.2-6524. Unlicensed dogs prohibited; ordinances for licensing cats | Va. Code Ann. § 3.2-6524 | VA ST § 3.2-6524 | This Virginia statute provides that it is unlawful for any person to own a dog four months old or older in the state unless such dog is licensed. With regard to cats, the governing body of any county, city or town may, by local ordinance, prohibit any person from owning a cat four months or older within such locality unless such cat is licensed. | Statute |