|2014 Animal and Natural Resource Law Case Review||Ryan Conklin||10 J. Animal & Nat. Resource L. 327||This article highlights significant animal and environmental cases from 2014.||Article|
|2014 Federal Legislative Review||Jessica Brockway||21 Animal L. 365 (2015)||This article provides a review of significant animal-related federal legislation from 2014.||Article|
|2014 International Animal Law Conference||
2014 II Global Animal Law Conference
|2014 State Legislative Review||Aaron C. Johnson||21 Animal L. 383 (2015)||This article provides a review of significant state animal-related legislation from 2014.||Article|
|2015 State Law Amendments||Rebecca F. Wisch||Animal Legal & Historical Center||
This table summarizes the statutory amendments that occurred in 2015. The table gives a brief description of the changes and links to the actual text of the laws.
|2016 Statutory Amendments Table||Rebecca F. Wisch||Animal Legal & Historical Center||
This table details the animal-related legislative changes that occurred across all fifty states in 2016. Links are provided to the amended laws and a summary of the change appears in the adjacent column.
|2017 Statutory Amendments Table||Rebecca F. Wisch||Animal Legal & Historical Center||This table details the animal-related legislative changes that occurred across all fifty states in 2017. Links are provided to the amended laws and a summary of the change appears in the adjacent column.||Topic Table|
|2018 Statutory Amendment Table||Rebecca F. Wisch||Animal Legal & Historical Center||This document provides a summary and table illustrating amendments to state laws in 2018.||Topic Table|
|32 Pit Bulldogs and Other Property v. County of Prentiss||808 So.2d 971 (Miss. S.C. 2002)||808 So.2d 971 (Miss. S.C. 2002)||
While a criminal trial regarding alleged dog-fighting was pending, the Circuit Court, Prentiss County, ordered the humane euthanization of 18 of 34 seized pit bulldogs. The alleged dog owner appealed. The Supreme Court held that allegations the dogs had been trained to fight, could not be rehabilitated as pets, and posed serious threat to other animals and people, related to the "physical condition" of the dogs, as statutory basis for humane euthanization. Affirmed.
|907 Whitehead Street, Inc. v. Secretary of U.S. Dept. of Agriculture||701 F.3d 1345 (C.A.11 (Fla.))||2012 WL 6061706 (C.A.11 (Fla.))||
The appellant in this case, the Ernest Hemingway Home and Museum in Key West, Florida ("Museum"), appeals the lower court's determination that it is an animal exhibitor for purposes of the Animal Welfare Act ("AWA"). Appellant contends that while admission is charged for the Museum, it does not exhibit the Hemingway cats to the public for compensation; thus, the cats are not distributed through interstate commerce. The court, however, found that since the AWA itself is ambiguous on the question of whether "distribution" includes the fixed-site commercial display of animals, the USDA's broader interpretation of "distribution" and "exhibitor" are entitled to legal deference. While the court sympathized with the museum's frustrations, it affirmed the district court's findings of law and held that Museum is an AWA animal exhibitor subject to USDA regulation