Results
| Title | Citation | Alternate Citation | Agency Citation | Summary | Type |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| IN - Cattle Slaughter - ORISSA PREVENTION OF COW SLAUGHTER ACT, 1960 | 5 of 1961 | This law, specific to the eastern Indian state of Orissa, prohibits the slaughter of cows. Bulls and bullocks may also not be slaughtered unless a certificate is obtained from a competent authority indicating that the bull or bullock is over fourteen years old. Cows, bulls and bullocks may be slaughtered if they have contagious or infectious diseases, or for experimentation in the interest of medical research. The government may establish institutions for the care of uneconomic cows. | Statute | ||
| England/Wales - Wild Animals - Wild Animals in Circuses Act 2019 | 2019 CHAPTER 24 | Comes into force January 2020: An Act banning the use of wild animals in traveling circuses in England and Wales. | Statute | ||
| NJ - Domestic Violence - Chapter 25. Domestic Violence | N. J. S. A. 2C:25-26, 27,28, 29 | NJ ST 2C:25-26, 27,28, 29 | On January 17, 2012, Governor Christie signed the Domestic Violence Pet Protection Law . The law authorizes courts to include pets in domestic violence restraining orders. The court is allowed to enter an order " . . . directing the possession of any animal owned, possessed, leased, kept, or held by either party or a minor child residing in the household. Where a person has abused or threatened to abuse such animal, there shall be a presumption that possession of the animal shall be awarded to the non-abusive party." This is listed in N. J. S. A. 2C:25-29(b)(19). Other sections are provided for definitions and background to section 29. | Statute | |
| Canada - Saskatchewan - Northern Municipailities Act (dangerous animal) | 2010, c.N-5.2, s.395; 2018, c A-21.2, s.40. | Saskatchewan's The Municipalities Act, The Cities Act and The Northern Municipalities Act, 2010 provide the basic legislative framework for all of the province's municipalities, and give municipalities what is referred to as "Natural Persons Power." This term is commonly understood to mean that municipalities possess all of the same powers that a normal person would. Essentially, a municipality can take any action that a natural person or business could to carry out its purposes unless or until legislation prohibits an action or places limitations or conditions on an action. Northern municipalities have specific authority to declare any animal or class or classes of animal to be dangerous. Legislative provisions within The Northern Municipalities Act, 2010 respecting dangerous dogs may meet local needs. | Statute | ||
| OH - Greenhills - Breed - 505.021 PIT BULL DOGS | GREENHILLS, OH., ORDINANCES § 505.021 (2011) |
No person may own, keep or harbor a pit bull dog in Greenhills, Ohio. A violation is a misdemeanor of the third degree. The dog may be destroyed or permanently removed from the Village. If convicted, the defendant will have to pay all expenses for the dog’s care, destruction, or removal. |
Local Ordinance | ||
| City of Canton v. Harris | 489 US 378 (1989) |
Detainee brought civil rights action against city, alleging violation of her right to receive necessary medical attention while in police custody. The Supreme Court held that inadequacy of police training may serve as basis for § 1983 municipal liability only where failure to train amounts to deliberate indifference to rights of persons with whom police come into contact. |
Case | ||
| MO - Hunting, Internet - 3 CSR 10-7.410. Hunting Methods | 3 MO ADC 10-7.410 | 3 Mo. Code of State Regulations 10-7.410 | In paragraph (R) of this Missouri regulation, the state prohibits computer-assisted, remote hunting. "Except as otherwise permitted in this Code, wildlife may be taken only in the immediate physical presence of the taker and may not be taken by use of computer-assisted remote hunting devices. . ." | Administrative | |
| Dogs in Restaurant Patio Laws | State map | ||||
| Journal of Animal Law Table of Contents Volume 3 |
Published by the students of Michigan State University College of LawJournal of Animal Law Vol. VIII (2007)The table of contents is provided below. |
Policy | |||
| State v. Smith | 685 A.2d 73 (N.J.Super.L. 1996) | 295 N.J.Super. 399 (1996) |
This case involves the construction of a Hoboken, New Jersey dangerous dog ordinance in light of the state Vicious and Potentially Dangerous Dog Act. The owner's dog that was the subject of this case was ordered by the municipal court to be destroyed after it bit a person on the hand. In applying the relevant preemption test, the court found that the Act preempted any city ordinance purporting to cover same subject. As noted by the court, it was the procedural conflict that caused the most concern. Thus, because the procedural/jurisdictional defect in the ordinance was not cured, the municipal court lacked jurisdiction to hear the case. |
Case |