Results
| Title | Citation | Alternate Citation | Agency Citation | Summary | Type |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| England - Puppy and Kitten Sales - The Animal Welfare (Licensing of Activities Involving Animals) (England) (Amendment) Regulations 2019 | 2019 No. 1093 | Comes into force 6 April 2020: Known as 'Lucy's Law.' These amendments to the licensing Regulations prevent the sale of puppies and kittens by third party sellers - such as a pet shop or commercial dealer - unless they have bred the animal themselves. Anyone looking to buy or adopt a puppy or kitten under 6 months old must deal directly with the breeder or animal re homing center. | Statute | ||
| Larsen v. McDonald | 212 N.W.2d 505 | 1973 Iowa Sup. LEXIS 1169 | In this case twelve neighbors brought a private nuisance claim against another neighbor for keeping numerous dogs in a residential area. Mr. and Mrs. McDonald rescued unwanted dogs by keeping them on their property; Ms. McDonald provided food and shelter and attempted to place the animals in new adoptive homes. At the time of trial there were 40 dogs on the property. The neighbors had called the police and complained of frequent barking and the smell of urine. The McDonalds argue that they had priority of location over the defendants. When they moved to the neighborhood in 1952 it had been sparsely settled. However, over the years the neighborhood had become residential, and while many of the neighbors also had dogs, none of them exceeded three dogs. Ultimately the court held that for the McDonalds to be operating a shelter or kennel style facility was inconsistent with the character of the neighborhood, and after reviewing the testimony, the evidence in this case was sufficient to show a normal person would find the situation was a nuisance. The court upheld the lower court’s injunction to limit the number of dogs that the McDonalds could keep. | Case | |
| CT - Exotic Animals - Sec. 26-54-1. Wildlife pen specifications | CT ADC § 26-54-1, CT ADC § 26-55-6 | Regs. Conn. State Agencies § 26-54-1; Regs. Conn. State Agencies § 26-55-6 | Connecticut regulation 26-54-1 gives the wildlife pen specifications for any bird or quadruped possessed under the provisions of section 26-54 or 26-55 of the General Statutes. In addition, Sec. 26-55-6 replaced 26-55-2 in 2012 (the rule on quadruped importation). Sec. 22-55-6 now divides animals into Categories 1 - 4 based on the dangerousness of the animal to people, whether it is an endangered or threatened species, and even the risk it poses to and the native environment. The rule then states that no person except certain entities like zoos, museums, USDA licensed exhibitors, and research facilities may possess Category One Wild Animals. Restrictions are also imposed on other categories of animals. The rule also details the grandfathering process for owning a primate that weighs less than 35 lbs. | Administrative | |
| Gerofsky v. Passaic County Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals | 870 A.2d 704 (N.J. 2005) | 376 N.J.Super. 405 |
The President of the New Jersey SPCA brought an action to have several county SPCA certificates of authority revoked. The county SPCAs brought a counterclaim alleging the revocation was beyond the state SPCA's statutory authority. The trial court revoked one county's certificate of authority, but the Court of Appeals held the revocation was an abuse of discretion. |
Case | |
| NH - Exotic Pets - Part FIS 804. Possession of Wildlife | NH ADC FIS 804.01 - .07 | N.H. Code Admin. R. Fis 804.01 - .07 | Under these New Hampshire regulations, a permit to possess wildlife shall not be required for any person to possess wildlife designated as non-controlled (species such as aquarium fish, amphibians, reptiles except for alligators, crocodiles, and venomous species, many pet birds, small pet mammals like gerbils and hamsters, and certain ungulates). However, no person shall be issued a permit to possess wildlife that has been designated as prohibited. These prohibited species include, among others, zebra mussels, non-indigenous crayfish, walking catfish, and the white amur. A person must possess a permit to possess any live wildlife, or their hybrids, designated as controlled. Table 800.2 lists the controlled species which include many wild turtles and salamanders, alligators, crocodiles, badgers, bears, cougars, coyotes, elephants, kangaroos, big cats, and large primates such as chimpanzees and gorillas. Any person who has legally acquired and possesses wildlife under a valid permit in 1992, and continuously since, and such wildlife is now designated as prohibited or controlled, shall be issued a permit to possess such wildlife. | Administrative | |
| Pray v. Whiteskunk | 801 N.W.2d 451 (S.D., 2011) | 2011 S.D. 43; 2011 WL 3207821 (S.D.) |
In this South Dakota case, the plaintiff suffered a broken knee after Defendant's Rottweiler brook loose from its owner and ran toward the street, causing plaintiff to fall. Plaintiff brought an action for damages against both the dog owner and the city, specifically alleging the the city knew the dog was dangerous and failed to enforce its vicious animal ordinance. On appeal of the granting of summary judgment for the city, this court found that plaintiff failed to establish that the action taken by the city caused the harm to Pray or exposed her to greater risks, thereby leaving her in a worse position than she was in before the city took action. While this Court found that the city had actual knowledge of the dog's dangerousness, this alone is insufficient. |
Case | |
| Dogs in Outdoor Dining | As of 2023, 23 states have laws or administrative regulations that allow patrons to bring pet dogs to outdoor dining spaces in restaurants. Some laws require that the local unit of government first enact an ordinance allowing the activity. | State map | |||
| OK - Restaurant, animals - 310:257-11-54. Prohibiting animals | OK ADC 310:257-11-54 | OAC 310:257-11-54 | This Oklahoma regulation relates to animals in food establishments. Subsection (d) states that dogs and cats may be allowed in outdoor dining areas, provided the dog or cat is controlled by the owner or handler of the animal and nine conditions are met. Among the conditions include a requirement for a separate entrance to the outdoor dining area, a prohibition on direct contact with the animals by employees, a process to keep the area clean from animal excrement, and a requirement that food and water receptacles for the animals be single-use, disposable containers. | Administrative | |
| Brower v. Evans | 257 F.3d 1058 (2001) |
The district court held that the Secretary's Initial Finding, triggering a change in the dolphin-safe label standard, was not in accordance with the law and constituted an abuse of discretion because the Secretary failed to (1) obtain and consider preliminary data from the congressionally mandated stress studies and (2) apply the proper legal standard to the available scientific information. We affirm. |
Case | ||
| Edmondson v. Oklahoma | 91 P.3d 605 (Okla. 2004) | 2004 OK 23 (2004) |
Petitioners sought relief from a temporary injunction for the Respondents, which prevented petitioners from enforcing the statute banning cockfighting. The Supreme Court assumed original jurisdiction and held that the statute did not violate the Oklahoma State Constitution, and was not unconstitutionally overbroad. Relief granted for petitioners. |
Case |