Results
| Title | Citation | Alternate Citation | Summary | Type |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Department of Local Government and Regional Development v Emanuel Exports Pty Ltd | Western Australia Magistrates Court, 8 February 2008, Magistrate C.P. Crawford |
The central allegation was that the defendants transported the sheep in a way likely to cause unnecessary harm. Magistrate Crawford found that the sheep, some of which died from inanition, suffered distress and harm and that this harm was unnecessary. Proof of actual harm, however, was unnecessary as it only had to be shown that it was likely that the sheep would suffer harm. This required evidence pointing only to the conditions onboard the ship, and voyage plan, as at the first day. The defences of necessity and honest and reasonable belief were both dismissed. |
Case | |
| Youngstown v. Traylor | 123 Ohio St.3d 132, 914 N.E.2d 1026 (Ohio,2009) | 2009 WL 2634570 (Ohio), 2009 -Ohio- 2971 | Defendant was charged with two misdemeanors after his unrestrained Italian Mastiff/Cane Corso dogs attacked a wire fox terrier and its owner. Defendant filed a motion to dismiss the charges against him, arguing that YCO 505.19(b) is unconstitutional and a violation of his procedural due process rights. The Supreme Court of Ohio held that the Youngstown municipal ordinance was constitutional because it was “rationally related to the city's legitimate interest in protecting citizens from vicious dogs,” provided “the dog owner with a meaningful opportunity to be heard on the dog's classification,” and did not “label dogs as dangerous or vicious” solely based on their breed type. | Case |
| TX - Assault, sexual of animal - § 21.09. Bestiality | V. T. C. A., Penal Code § 21.09 | TX PENAL § 21.09 | This law represents Texas' prohibition on bestiality, which was enacted in 2017. A person commits this offense if he or she engages in listed contact with an animal. Additionally, a person violates this law if he or she: possesses or provides an animal for such purpose; organizes, promotes or participates in such conduct; permits such conduct at premises under his or her control; engages in conduct listed described in the presence of a child younger than 18 years of age; or advertises, offers, or accepts the offer of an animal with the intent that the animal be used in this state for conduct described. Violation is a state jail felony unless the conduct is done in the presence of a child younger than 18 or the conduct results in serious bodily injury or death of the animal; the offense is a felony of the second degree in those cases. | Statute |
| Bowden v. Monroe County Commission | 800 S.E.2d 252 (W. Va. May 18, 2017) | 239 W. Va. 214, 2017 WL 2224052 (W. Va. May 18, 2017) | The Plaintiff, as administratrix of the estate of her late husband, filed a complaint after he was attacked and killed by American Pit Bull Terriers while taking a walk near his home. The Plaintiff filed against the Defendants, Monroe County, the County Dog Warden Ms. Green, and other defendants, alleging, negligence in performing their statutory duties by allowing vicious dogs to remain at large, and wrongful death. The Plaintiff also sought punitive damages. The Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the complaint and asserted a defense based upon the public duty doctrine. The Circuit Court, Monroe County, granted summary judgment in favor of the Defendants. The Plaintiff appealed. The Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia reversed the Circuit Court and remanded. The Supreme Court held that genuine issues of material fact existed for determining whether a special relationship existed between the county and the victim such as whether: (1) the dog warden assumed an affirmative duty to act on the victim's behalf, (2) the dog warden was aware that inaction could lead to harm, (3) the dog warden had direct contact with the victim's wife regarding vicious nature of dogs; and (4) the victim's wife justifiably relied on assurances from dog warden. | Case |
| NJ - Cruelty - Consolidated Cruelty Statutes | NJSA 4:22-10 to 4:22-61; NJSA 2C:33-31 - 32 | NJ ST 4:22-10 to 4:22-61; 2C:33-31 - 32 | These New Jersey statutes comprise the state's anti-cruelty provisions. According to the definitional section, "animal" or "creature" includes the whole brute creation. Exclusions under the act include state regulated scientific experiments, state sanctioned killing of animals, hunting of game, training of dogs, normal livestock operations, and the killing of rats and mice. With regard to livestock practices, no person may be cited or arrested for a first offense involving a minor or incidental violation of any provision of this title involving alleged cruelty to domestic livestock unless that person has first been issued a written warning. | Statute |
| US - Migratory Bird - Migratory Bird Treaty Act | 16 USC 703 - 712 | This law implements the treaties that the US has signed with a number of countries protecting birds that migrate across our national borders. It makes illegal the taking, possessing or selling of protected species. | Statute | |
| Mejia v. State | 681 S.W.2d 88 (Tex. App. 1984). |
Rooster fighting case. Testimony from the defendant's witness, a sociologist that argued cockfighting is not generally thought of as an illegal activity, was irrelevant in cruelty to animals conviction. Statute is not unconstitutionally vague. |
Case | |
| State v. Cleve | 980 P.2d 23 (N.M. 1999) |
Defendant was convicted of two counts of cruelty to animals, two counts of unlawful hunting, and negligent use of firearm. On appeal, the Supreme Court held that "any animal," within meaning of animal cruelty statute, applied only to domesticated animals and wild animals previously reduced to captivity, and thus, the animal cruelty statute did not apply to defendant's conduct in snaring two deer. The court also held that even if the Legislature had intended to protect wild animals in Section 30-18-1, New Mexico's laws governing hunting and fishing preempt the application of Section 30-18-1 to the taking of deer by Cleve in this case. |
Case | |
| Colombia, LEY 576, 2000, Code of Ethics for the professional exercise of veterinary medicine and animal husbandry. | LEY 576, 2000 | This law reflects the Code of Ethics for the professional exercise of veterinary medicine and animal husbandry. This law contains the guidelines and standards of the veterinary professions that must be followed by veterinarians and veterinary zoo technicians to avoid veterinary malpractice liability. Ley 576, prescribes the type of behaviors that are not allowed and the circumstances were such behaviors could take place. In addition, this law also creates the tribunal of professional ethics for these professions, and the legal procedure that must be followed by this tribunal in the undertaking of investigations and hearing of users’ complaints. Furthermore, this law regulates the ethical behavior, and responsibilities of the veterinary professionals towards their clients, other colleagues, veterinary assistants, natural resources, and professional associations. | Statute | |
| Animal Law Index Volume 18, Part 1 |
Animal Law Review, Volume 18, Issue 1 (Fall 2011)ARTICLESTHE STATUTORY PET TRUST : RECOMMENDATIONS FOR A NEW UNIFORM LAW BASED ON THE PAST TWENTY-ONE YEARS |
Policy |