Results
| Title | Citation | Alternate Citation | Summary | Type |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Just Puppies, Inc. v. Frosh | 438 F. Supp. 3d 448 (D. Md. 2020), vacated and remanded, No. 20-1631, 2021 WL 4452349 (4th Cir. Apr. 29, 2021) | The State of Maryland passed a “No More Puppy-Mill Pups Act” which went into effect January 1, 2020. The Act prohibits retail pet stores in Maryland from offering for sale or otherwise transferring or disposing of cats or dogs. Four pet stores, a dog breeder, and a dog broker filed suit against Brian Frosh, the Attorney General of Maryland, the Consumer Protection Division of the Office of the Maryland Attorney General (CPD), the Maryland House Economic Matters Committee, and the Maryland State Senate Finance Committee seeking an injunction prohibiting enforcement of the Act as well as a declaration that it is unconstitutional under the Commerce Clause and the Equal Protection Clause of the United States Constitution. The Defendants were all entitled to sovereign immunity under the Eleventh Amendment, unless an exception were to apply. Under the Ex parte Young exception “private citizens may sue state officials in their official capacities in federal court to obtain prospective relief from ongoing violations of federal law.” The CPD and Committee Defendants were not State officials and, therefore, they did not fall within the Ex parte Young exception. The Ex parte Young exception, however, applied to Mr. Frosh as he was the Attorney General of Maryland since he had some connection with the enforcement of the Act. In Counts I, II, and III, the Plaintiffs alleged that the Puppy-Mill Act violated the Constitution's Commerce Clause. The Court found that the Plaintiffs failed to plausibly allege that the Act discriminated against out-of-state breeders and brokers in its text, in its effect, or in its purpose. Count IV alleged that the Puppy-Mill Act was preempted by the AWA. The Court found that prohibiting Maryland pet stores from selling dogs or cats had no effect on the operation of the AWA. The Puppy-Mill Act's impact on pet stores did not clash with the AWA, because pet stores were explicitly exempt from the AWA. Count V alleged that the Puppy-Mill Act deprived Plaintiffs of their constitutional right to the equal protection of law, in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution. The Court found no merit in this argument. Count VI asserted that the Act created a monopoly prohibited by Article 41 of the Maryland Declaration of Rights. The Court found that the Puppy-Mill Act did not constitute an exclusive right to sell cats and dog in Maryland. Although the Act prohibited brick and mortar stores from participating in the sale of cats and dogs, consumers still had a plethora of choices when seeking to obtain a pet, including rescue shelters, animal control units, USDA licensed breeders and brokers, and unregulated hobby breeders. The Court ultimately dismissed all claims against the CPD and the Committee Defendants and allowed the claims against Brian Frosh to proceed. | Case | |
| Slavin v. United States | 2005 WL 742707 (8th Cir. 2005) |
An Arkansas woman who raises gamefowl brought an action challenging the constitutionality of the Animal Welfare Act which prohibits the interstate transportation of birds for the purposes of fighting. The trial court dismissed the woman's claim and the Court of Appeals affirmed holding the statute is not vague. |
Case | |
| AK - Initiatives - Ballot Measure 9 (wolf trapping) | Ballot Measure 9 (2000) | This bill would have prohibited a person from using a snare with the intent of trapping a wolf and appeared on the 2000 ballot. It would also have prohibited a person from possessing, buying, selling, or offering to sell the skin of a wolf known by the person to have been caught with a snare. Breaking the law would have been a Class A misdemeanor. The measure failed with only 37.3% of the vote. | Statute | |
| WI - Dog Bite - Chapter 174. Dogs. 174.12. Actions against owners | W. S. A. 174.12 | WI ST 174.12 | This Wisconsin statute outlines the allowance procedure by counties for damage done by dogs after a claim is filed and the county sues to recover from the owner of the damaging dog. The claimant shall first be notified that such action is contemplated and shall have been given a reasonable opportunity to be heard and to offer further evidence in support of the claimant's claim. It also provides that this chapter shall not in any way limit the existing right or authority of any town, village or city to pass ordinances for the keeping and regulating of dogs, or repeal or annul any existing statute or ordinance or local regulation governing the keeping and regulating of dogs. | Statute |
| UK - Boarding - Animal Boarding Establishments Act 1963 | 1963 c. 43 |
The 1963 Animal Boarding Establishments Act deals with places where the boarding of animals is being carried on as a business. This act requires such establishments to be licensed by the local authority. The act defines "boarding establishments" as those premises, including private dwellings, where the business consists of providing accommodation for other people’s cats and dogs. When deciding to issue a license, the local authority shall consider the suitability of the conditions (e.g., size of quarters, lighting, food, water, disease control, etc.) present at the boarding establishment. |
Statute | |
| ANIMAL LEGAL DEFENSE FUND, ANIMAL WELFARE INSTITUTE, COMPLAINT FOR VALERIE BUCHANAN, JANE GARRISON, AND NANCY MEGNA DECLARATORY | This action concerns a lawsuit filed by the Animal Legal Defense Fund (ALDF), et al, over the lack of action by the federal agency, the Animal & Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) to adopt a policy on what constitutes appropriate conditions for primates in federally licensed or registered facilities. Specifically, the complaint alleges that the failure of the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) of the United State Department of Agriculture to make a final decision concerning the defendants' proposed “Policy On Environment Enhancement For Nonhuman Primates.” See 64 Fed. Reg. 38,145 (July 15, 1999) (Policy). APHIS determined at least seven years ago that APHIS enforcement officials and the regulated community urgently need such a policy to insure that primates are housed in “physical environments adequate to promote the[ir] psychological well-being,” as required by the Animal Welfare Act (AWA). 7 U.S.C. § 2143. By failing to make a final decision on the proposed Policy, defendants are violating the Animal Welfare Act, 7 U.S.C. § 2143, and are unreasonably delaying and/or unlawfully withholding agency action in violation of the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. § 706(1). | Pleading | ||
| The Future of Animal Law |
The Future of Animal Law, David Favre, Professor, Michigan State University College of Law, Edward Elgar Publishing (2021).
|
Policy | ||
| People v. Berry | 1 Cal. App. 4th 778 (1991) | 2 Cal.Rptr.2d 416 (1991) |
In a prosecution arising out of the killing of a two-year-old child by a pit bulldog owned by a neighbor of the victim, the owner was convicted of involuntary manslaughter (Pen. Code, § 192, subd. (b)), keeping a mischievous animal (Pen. Code, § 399), and keeping a fighting dog (Pen. Code, § 597.5, subd. (a)(1)). The Court of Appeal affirmed, holding that an instruction that a minor under the age of five years is not required to take precautions, was proper. The court further held that the trial court erred in defining "mischievous" in the jury instruction, however, the erroneous definition was not prejudicial error under any standard of review. The court also held that the scope of defendant's duty owed toward the victim was not defined by Civ. Code, § 3342, the dog-bite statute; nothing in the statute suggests it creates a defense in a criminal action based on the victim's status as a trespasser and on the defendant's negligence. |
Case |
| UT - Sterilization - Animal Welfare Act. Part 2. Animal Shelter Pet Sterilization Act | U.C.A. 1953 § 11-46-201 - 208 | UT ST § 11-46-201 - 208 | Under this Utah act, a shelter may not transfer an unsterilized animal for adoption unless the shelter has a written agreement in which the recipient agrees to have the animal sterilized and gives the shelter a sterilization deposit. If a recipient fails to comply with the agreement, the animal may be seized and impounded, and the recipient forfeits the deposit. A first violation may result in a civil penalty of $250. | Statute |
| AU - Companion Animals - Domestic Animals Act 1994 (VIC) | Domestic Animals Act 1994 - No. 81 of 1994 | The purpose of the Domestic Animals Act is to promote animal welfare, responsible pet ownership and to protect the environment. The legislation provides for cat and dog identification and enables Municipal Councils to deal effectively with feral, straying and nuisance populations. | Statute |
