Results
| Title | Citation | Alternate Citation | Summary | Type |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| IN - Health - Article 17. Animal Health and Animal Products. Chapter 18. Crimes and Infractions | I.C. 15-17-18-1 - 13 | IN ST 15-17-18-1 - 13 | This set of Indiana laws covers diseased livestock and the sale of domestic animals. It also provides that a person responsible for livestock or poultry who knowingly or intentionally permits the livestock or poultry to run at large commits a Class B misdemeanor. Another provision states that a person may not import to or export from Indiana for the purpose of sale any dog under the age of eight (8) weeks unless the dog is transported with its dam. | Statute |
| CO - Domestic Violence - Animals and Domestic Violence; Definition. | C. R. S. A. § 18-6-800.3; C.R.S.A. § 13-14-101, 103 | CO ST § 18-6-800.3; CO ST § 13-14-101, 103 | This statute includes within the definition of "domestic violence" any other crime against a person, or against property, including an animal, or any municipal ordinance violation against a person, or against property, including an animal, when used as a method of coercion, control, punishment, intimidation, or revenge directed against a person with whom the actor is or has been involved in an intimate relationship. Under Article 14 on Civil Protection Orders, the phrase "protection order” means any order that prohibits the restrained person from contacting, harassing, injuring, intimidating, molesting, threatening, touching, stalking, or sexually assaulting or abusing any protected person or from entering or remaining on premises, or from coming within a specified distance of a protected person or premises, or from taking, transferring, concealing, harming, disposing of or threatening harm to an animal owned, possessed, leased, kept, or held by a protected person, or any other provision to protect the protected person from imminent danger to life or health. | Statute |
| State ex rel. Zobel v. Burrell | 2005 WL 957908 (Mo. App. S.D. 2005) |
A trial court granted a local humane society permission to humanely dispose of horses placed in their custody by the Sheriff. A man filed petition for a writ of mandamus against the the trial judge and humane society to challenge the judge's order. The Court of Appeals reversed the trial court holding the trial court lacked jurisdiction over the Humane Society of Missouri. Opinion transferred to State ex rel. Zobel v. Burrell , 167 S.W.3d 688 (Mo., 2005). |
Case | |
| U.S. v. Williams | 898 F.2d 727 (9th Cir. 1990) |
Kenneth Ray Williams appealed his conviction for the illegal hunting of moose in violation of the Lacey Act. Williams claimed that his conviction should be overturned because the government failed to establish the validity of use of the wildlife law against a tribe member. The United States argued that there is no need for the government to establish the validity of the law's use against a tribe member. The court affirmed the conviction and held that the government must establish the validity of the use of wildlife laws against tribe members but that similar laws enacted by the tribe can establish this validity. |
Case | |
| Matter of S. A. B. | 531 P.3d 718, review denied sub nom. Dep't of Hum. Servs. v. T. B., 371 Or. 476, 537 P.3d 939 (2023) | 326 Or.App. 192 (Or.App., 2023) | In this Ohio juvenile dependency case, a father appeals a juvenile court judgment ordering him to transfer the his dog to his child, claiming that the court lacked the authority to transfer possession of the dog. He also claims the dog is his personal property and not the child's. The child, who does not live with the father, suffers from panic attacks and has difficulty sleeping at night. The child's therapist testified that the child's mental health symptoms are exacerbated by "missing and worrying about the dog." The therapist testified that, because of the bond that child shares with the dog, the child's emotional support dog should be this particular dog. In contrast, the father claims the dog is legally his and provides a household benefit for him by keeping raccoons away from his chickens and deterring thieves from entering the property. The lower court found that the child shares a bond with the dog and having the dog as an emotional support animal would benefit the child. On appeal, the father argues that an emotional support animal does not fall within the statutory definition for "counseling" and, thus, the court's order was tantamount to giving away his property. In looking at the statute, the court noted that "counseling" is undefined and so looking at the plain and ordinary meaning is appropriate. As a result, the court found that the dictionary definition read with the policy goals of the chapter on jurisdiction of the juvenile court allowed the court to conclude that the term "counseling" includes the use of emotional support animals. The evidence in this case also shows that this particular dog is necessary as ". . . this particular dog is not just a pet, but rather is an emotional support animal for child, as evidenced by child's strong emotional bond with this particular dog and various testimony demonstrating that this particular dog will contribute to child's well-being by providing child with emotional stability and security." As to the property issue raised by the father, the court observed that courts routinely order parents to provide support for their children and this transfer of property did not abuse the court's discretion. Affirmed. | Case |
| OR - Initiatives - Measure 100, Save Endangered Animals (2016) | Measure 100 (2016) | Official Summary: Existing Oregon law does not prohibit sale of wildlife parts/products for non native species, except shark fins. Existing federal law does not prohibit intrastate sales of wildlife parts, with exceptions. Measure amends ORS 498.022 to prohibit purchase, sale, or possession with intent to sell of parts/products from elephant, rhinoceros, whale, tiger, lion, leopard, cheetah, jaguar, pangolin, sea turtle, shark, ray. Imposes civil penalties. Creates exceptions: law enforcement activities; activities authorized by federal law; fish managed under federal plan; certain antiques (over l00 years old) and musical instruments with less than 200 grams of parts; noncommercial transfers through estates, trusts, gifts; possession by tribal members. Other exceptions. Fish and Wildlife Commission may adopt rules, including prohibiting purchase/sale of parts "closely" resembling listed species parts. A "Yes" vote prohibits purchase/sale of parts/products from certain wildlife species; exceptions for specified activities, gift/inheritances, and certain antiques/musical instruments; civil penalties. A "No" vote maintains current Oregon law which does not prohibit purchase or sale of parts or products from species not native to Oregon, except for shark fins. | Statute | |
| Maps of States that have Laws to Protect Animals in Parked Cars |
Thirty-one (31) states and the District of Columbia have laws that concern companion animals left unattended in parked vehicles under dangerous conditions as of 2023. In some states, leaving an animal in an unattended vehicle under dangerous conditions is a crime. Many states also give immunity to law enforcement or other first responders who forcibly enter vehicles to rescue animals. Recently, several states (AZ, CA, CO, CT, DE, FL, IN, KS, LA, MA, OH, OR, TN, VT, and WI) enacted laws giving civil immunity to any individuals who break-in to vehicles to remove pets (or vulnerable persons like children or incapacitated individuals) in imminent danger, provided they meet other conditions under these laws. To view these laws, click on the teal states. For more detailed information on these laws, please visit our comparative table on the topic. |
State map | ||
| GA - Cruelty - Chapter 11. Animal Protection | Ga. Code Ann., § 4-11-1 to 18 | GA ST § 4-11-1 to 4-11-18 | The Georgia Animal Protection Act was passed in 2000 and provides for jail up to one year for general cruelty convictions and up to five years for an aggravated cruelty conviction. The judge is also allowed to order psychological counseling. The law also encompasses licensing provisions for kennels and impoundment provisions. | Statute |
| CA - Sharks - § 2021. Shark fins; unlawful possession, sale, offer for sale, trading, or distribution; exceptions | West's Ann.Cal.Fish & G.Code §§ 2021, 2021.5 | CA FISH & G § 2021, 2021.5 | Under these California statutes, it is unlawful to possess, sell, offer for sale, trade, or distribute a shark fin. However, there are exceptions for people who have a license or permit. In addition, people and restaurants who have a shark fin as of January 1, 2012 may possess it until January 1, 2013. | Statute |
| Webb v. Amtower | 2008 WL 713728 (KS,2008 (not reported)) | 178 P.3d 80 (KS,2008 (table only)) |
The court applied the forum's traditional lex loci conflict-of-laws rule to determine what jurisdiction's law governed for both damages and recovery of possession. The "place of injury" for the tort/damages issue was Kansas since that's where the contract was signed. The court remanded the case to determine the law of the place where the dog was found to determine the right-to-possession since that was a personal property issue. |
Case |