Results
| Title | Citation | Alternate Citation | Summary | Type |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| CITY OF TOLEDO, Appellant, v. Paul TELLINGS, Appellee |
This Reply Brief of Appellant City of Toledo was filed for the Supreme Court case of Toledo v. Tellings (871 N.E.2d 1152 (2007)). The Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals decision, finding that the state and the city have a legitimate interest in protecting citizens against unsafe conditions caused by pit bulls. |
Pleading | ||
| Chalmers v. Diwell | 74 LGR 173 |
Defendant was an exporter of pet birds. He kept birds at a premises in the course of his business. Usually the birds remained on the premises for less than 48 hours before continuing their journey to their purchasers but on occasion birds had remained on the premises for up to 12 days. A magistrates' court acquitted him of keeping a pet shop without a licence (contrary to Pet Animals Act 1951, s.1). Prosecutor appealed. Result: appeal allowed. Held: even though the premises was being used as no more than a holding center, the defendant was carrying on from that premises a business of selling pets and the premises therefore required a pet shop license. |
Case | |
| Animal Law Index Volume 6 |
Animal Law Review, Volume 6 (2000)INTRODUCTIONWILDLIFE—OUR MOST VALUABLE PUBLIC RESOURCE |
Policy | ||
| CA - Initiatives - Proposition 12 (2018) | Proposition 12 (2018) | Proposition 12 establishes new minimum space requirements for certain farmed animals, including veal calves, pregnant pigs, and egg-laying hens. It also requires that egg-laying hens be raised in a cage-free environment after December 31, 2021. The measure follows the passage of Proposition 2 in 2008, which banned the sale of products from animals raised in violation of the minimum animal welfare requirements. | Statute | |
| VA - Dangerous - § 3.2-6540. Control of dangerous or vicious dogs; penalties | Va. Code Ann. § 3.2-6540 - 6543.1 | VA ST § 3.2-6540 - 6543.1 | These Virginia statutes comprise the state's dangerous dog laws, which were updated in 2021. Any law-enforcement officer or animal control officer who (i) has reason to believe that an animal is a dangerous dog and (ii) is located in the jurisdiction where the animal resides or in the jurisdiction where the act was committed may apply to a magistrate for the issuance of a summons requiring the owner, if known, to appear before a general district court at a specified time. The summons shall advise the owner of the nature of the proceeding and the matters at issue. Section 3.2-6540.1 also defines a vicious dog as "a canine or canine crossbreed that has (i) killed a person, (ii) inflicted serious injury to a person, or (iii) continued to exhibit the behavior that resulted in a previous finding by a court or, on or before July 1, 2006, by an animal control officer as authorized by ordinance that it is a dangerous dog, provided that its owner has been given notice of that finding." | Statute |
| OH - Impound - Impounding Animals | R.C. § 715.23 | OH ST § 715.23 | This Ohio statute empowers municipal corporations to regulate, restrain, or prohibit the running at large of cattle, horses, swine, sheep, goats, geese, chickens, or other fowl or animals (except as otherwise provided for dogs), impound and hold these animals, and authorize the sale of the animals for the penalty imposed. | Statute |
| MO - Florissant - Breed - SECTION 205.395: REGULATION OF PIT BULL DOGS | FLORISSANT, MO. MUNICIPAL CODE § 205.395 (2010) | In Florissant, Missouri, it is unlawful to keep, harbor, own, or possess any pit bull, except pit bulls licensed on the effective date are allowed. Such dogs are subject to certain requirements, such as owners taking identifying photographs, keeping the dog properly confined and/or secured, posting a "Beware of Dog--Pit Bull" sign, keeping $100,000 liability insurance, and sterilizing the dog. A violation may result in seizure and impoundment of the dog. | Local Ordinance | |
| Horton v. State | Horton v. State, 27 So. 468 (Ala. 1900). |
The defendant was charged under the Alabama cruelty to animal statute killing a dog. The trial court found the defendant guilty of cruelly killing the dog. The defendant appealed the descision to the Supreme Court for the determination if the killing of the dog with a rifle was cruel. The Supreme Court found that the killing of a dog without the showing of cruelty to the animal was not a punishable offence under the cruelty to animal statute. The Supreme Court reversed the lower court's descision and remanded it. |
Case | |
| Poarch Creek Band of Indians of Alabama. 8-6-31-Cruelty to Animals | Chapter VI, Title 8, Section 8-6-31 | Under Sec. 8-6-31, cruelty to animals is a Class A Misdemeanor. A person who, without justification, knowingly or negligently subjects an animal to mistreatment by actions defined in the statute commit the crime of cruelty to animals. | Statute | |
| SD - Bite - Chapter 40-34. Dog Licenses and Regulation (Vicious Dog Provisions) | S D C L § 40-34-13 to 16 | SD ST § 40-34-13 to 16 | This South Dakota statute provides that a vicious dog, defined as any dog which, when unprovoked, in a vicious manner approaches in apparent attitude of attack, or bites, or otherwise attacks a human being including a mailman, meter reader, serviceman, etc. who is on private property by reason of permission of the owner, is a public nuisance. However, no dog may be declared vicious if an injury or damage is sustained to any person who was committing a willful trespass or other tort upon premises occupied by the owner or keeper of the dog, or who was teasing, tormenting, abusing or assaulting the dog or was committing or attempting to commit a crime. | Statute |