Results
| Title | Citation | Alternate Citation | Summary | Type |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cruelty, Police Shooting Pets, Domestic Violence and Hoarding | Policy | |||
| VA - Dangerous - § 3.2-6553. Compensation for livestock and poultry killed by dogs | Va. Code Ann. § 3.2-6553 | VA ST § 3.2-6553 | This Virginia statute states that any person who has any livestock or poultry killed or injured by any dog not his or her own shall be entitled to receive the fair market value of such livestock or poultry not to exceed $750 per animal or $10 per fowl, provided that the claimant has furnished evidence, the animal control officer was notified within seventy-two hours after discovery of the damage, and the claimant has exhausted other legal remedies. However, local jurisdictions may by ordinance waive the last two requirements provided that the ordinance adopted requires that the animal control officer has conducted an investigation and that his investigation supports the claim. | Statute |
| MI - Alma - Breed - DIVISION 2. VICIOUS DOGS | ALMA, MI., CODE OF ORDINANCES §§ 10-51 - 10-60 (2006) |
In Alma, it is unlawful to keep, harbor, own, or possess any vicious dog, with exceptions. "Vicious dog" is defined as any dog with a propensity to attack, injure, or otherwise endanger the safety of people or domestic animals. A vicious dog is also any dog that attacks or indicates that it is liable to attack a person or domestic animal. There is a rebuttable presumption that a pit bull dog is a vicious dog. |
Local Ordinance | |
| Maupin v. Sidiropolis | 600 S.E.2d 204 (W.V. 2004) |
Dog owner appealed the decision of the State Racing Commission which found that the owner was not eligible for payments under the State Greyhound Breeding Development Fund. The Circuit Court reversed, and the Commission appealed. The Court of Appeals found that (1) any owner of a greyhound may participate in the fund as long as eligibility requirements are met; (2) that the inclusion of a nonresident joint tenant did not prevent the joint tenant from receiving money from the Fund; and (3) that a joint ownership interest in the dogs was created by the styling of the registration documents. |
Case | |
| Housing Authority of the City of New London v. Tarrant | 1997 WL 30320 (Conn. 1997) |
A mother renting housing alleged that her son was "mentally challenged" and required the companionship of a dog pursuant to Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act. The court rejected the tenant's allegations that her son had a qualifying mental disability, reasoning that the son received high marks in school prior to the commencing of the eviction proceedings. The court held that without evidence of a mental or physical disability, no reasonable accommodation is required. |
Case | |
| England, Wales & Scotland - Wildlife, badgers - Protection of Badgers Act 1992 | 1992 CHAPTER 51 | This Act prohibits the deliberate killing, injuring or capturing of a wild badger; and any interfering with badger setts (and the attempt to do so). General exemptions are provided, and licenses may be issued for the taking and killing of badgers (for example, as obtained for recent badger culls). | Statute | |
| WY - Cruelty - Consolidated Cruelty Statutes | W.S.1977 § 6-3-1001 - 1010; § 6-4-601 | WY ST § 6-3-1001 - 1010; § 6-4-601 | This compilation of laws contains Wyoming's anti-cruelty provisions that were amended in 2021. Under the new laws, a person commits cruelty to animals if the person knowingly overrides an animal or drives an animal when overloaded; intentionally or knowingly, unnecessarily injures or beats an animal; or knowingly carries an animal in a manner that poses undue risk of injury or death. Additionally, a person has the charge or custody of any animal under circumstances that manifest "extreme indifference" to the animal's safety, health or life, and fails to provide it with listed necessities, abandons the animal, fails to provide the animal with appropriate care in the case of immediate and obvious serious injury or illness also commits cruelty to animals. Other prohibitions include animal fighting, shooting or poisoning livestock or domestic animals on property where the animal is authorized to be. A first offense of cruelty to animals or of a violation of W.S. 6-3-1003 is a misdemeanor punishable by imprisonment for not more than six months, a fine of not more than $750.00, or both, with enhanced penalties for subsequent convictions. Felony cruelty to animals occurs when a person commits cruelty to animals as defined in W.S. 6-3-1002(a)(v) through (ix), that results in the death or required euthanasia of the animal; or (ii) knowingly, and with intent to cause death or undue suffering, beats with cruelty, tortures, torments or mutilates an animal. Such acts incur permanent forfeiture of the animal at issue and imprisonment for not more than two years and/or a fine of up to $5,000. With either misdemeanor or felony convictions, the court may order forfeiture of the animals involved, payment of reasonable costs of animal impoundment, and restraints on future ownership of animals. A bestiality law was also enacted in 2021 that prohibits actors from engaging in sexual acts with animals. Violation is a misdemeanor with punishment of up to one year imprisonment and/or a fine of up to $1,000. | Statute |
| SC - Leash - § 51-3-145. Certain acts unlawful at state parks. | Code 1976 § 51-3-145 | SC ST § 51-3-145 | This South Carolina law contains a dog leash provision that states that it is unlawful for any person to bring a dog or any other animal into the park or facility unless it is crated, caged, or upon a leash not longer than six feet or otherwise under physically restrictive control at all times (see section P). This provision concerns any park or facility under the jurisdiction of the Department of Parks, Recreation and Tourism. | Statute |
| Black Hawk County v. Jacobsen (Unpublished) | 2002 WL 1429365 (Iowa App. 2002) (Not Reported in N.W. 2d) |
In this case, Donna Jacobsen appealed a district court order finding she had neglected fifty-six dogs in the course of her operation of a federal and state licensed kennel in Jesup. On appeal, Jacobsen contended that the district court lacked subject matter jurisdiction because federal law (the Animal Welfare Act) preempts state regulations of federally licensed kennels. The court disagreed, finding the Act expressly contemplates state and local regulation of animals. Further, a plain reading of the Animal Welfare Act shows that Congress demonstrated no express or implied intent to preempt state or local government from regulating in this area. |
Case | |
| McElroy v. Carter | Not Reported in S.W.3d, 2006 WL 2805141 (Tenn.Ct.App.) |
In this Tennessee case, a man shot and wounded a cat owned by his neighbor as the animal exited from the bed of the man's prized pickup truck. The cat died from its wounds shortly thereafter. The neighbor sued for the veterinary bills she incurred for treatment of the cat's injuries. The truck owner counter-sued for the damage the cat allegedly caused to his truck by scratching the paint. After a bench trial, the court awarded the truck's owner $6,500 in damages, which it offset by a $372 award to the neighbor for her veterinary bills. The Court of Appeals reversed that decision finding that as a matter of law the cat's owner cannot be held liable for not keeping her cat confined when the damage the cat allegedly caused was not foreseeable. |
Case |