Results
| Title | Citation | Alternate Citation | Summary | Type |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Arrington v. Arrington | 613 S.W.2d 565 (Tex. Civ. App. 1981) |
A divorcing couple agreed to visitation of their dog, which the trial court incorporated into the divorce decree, appointing wife as the dog's managing conservator. Husband appealed because he had not been appointed managing conservator; the appellate court stated that dogs are personal property, and the office of managing conservator had been created for human children. While the court held that dogs are personal property under the law, it also stated that visitation of dogs should be allowed. |
Case | |
| MD - Research - § 21-259.3. Prohibition on Testing Cosmetics on Animals | MD Code, Health - General, § 21-259.3 | This Maryland law, effective in 2022, states that a manufacturer may not sell or offer for sale in the State a cosmetic if the manufacturer knows or reasonably should have known that the final product or any individual component of the final product was developed or manufactured using animal testing that was conducted or contracted by or for the manufacturer or any entity that supplies, directly or through a third party, any ingredient used by a manufacturer in the formulation of a cosmetic on or after January 1, 2022. Limited exceptions exist. A person who violates this section is subject to a civil penalty up to a $5,000 penalty for the first offense and up to $1,000 for each subsequent offense. | Statute | |
| VT - Swine, feral - § 3350. The disposition of feral swine | 20 V.S.A. § 3350 | VT ST T. 20 § 3350 | This law, enacted in 2020, authorizes the Department of Fish and Wildlife to destroy or euthanize a feral swine in accordance with the requirements of 10 V.S.A. § 4709(f). | Statute |
| Cottongame v. State | 2014 WL 3536801 (Tex. App. 2014), unpublished | 2014 WL 3536801 (Tex. App. July 17, 2014), MEMORANDUM OPINION DO NOT PUBLISH Tex.R.App. P. 47.2(b) | Despite an ordinance restricting the number of cats a person can own to three unless a permit was obtained, an officer decided not to enforce the ordinance against the appellant because she was helping with the feral-cat problem in the city and because “she was ... attempting to bring into compliance [her] animal rescue.” When the officer left his job, however, a neighbor complained and an investigation took place. The investigating officer noted everything in the house was covered in cat litter, there was no carpet in the home, and cat urine was on the living-room floor. The smell of cat urine and feces also sickened the officer to the point that he had to leave the house to get fresh air. The State filed a complaint alleging Appellant's violation of the ordinance. A jury found Appellant guilty of the offense as alleged in the complaint and assessed her punishment at $75 plus court costs. Appellant appealed from her conviction for violating a city ordinance regarding the number of animals that may be kept without a permit. In her first issue, the appellant asserted that her conviction violated the Privileges or Immunities Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment because the city “selectively enforced its purported ordinance that prohibits any person from having possession of more than three cats without a permit.” The court, however, found that there was no evidence before the trial court indicating that appellant was singled out for enforcement or that her selection for enforcement was based on anything other than a valid citizen complaint. In her second issue, the appellant argued that the evidence was insufficient to support her conviction. The court, however, found that the evidence was sufficient to support the jury's finding that the appellant was in violation of the ordinance. The lower court’s decision was therefore affirmed. | Case |
| AU - Cruelty - Animal Welfare Act (ACT Primary Act) | Animal Welfare Act 1992 | The Australian Capital Territory enacted this Act 'for the promotion of animal welfare and for related purposes'. The Act is enforced by the RSPCA ACT and generally covers domestic animals. | Statute | |
| HI - Honolulu - Chapter 7: Animals and Fowl (Article 1: Cockfighting and Related Equipment) | Revised Ordinances of Honolulu §§ 7-1.1 - 7-1.3 |
This Honolulu ordinance prohibits any person from engaging or participating in a cockfighting exhibition. This ordinance also prohibits gaffs or slashers or any other sharp instrument from being attached to or in place of the natural spur on a gamecock or other fighting fowl. Any person violating any provision of this article shall be punished by a fine of not less than $250 and not exceeding $1,000 or by imprisonment not exceeding thirty days, or by both. |
Local Ordinance | |
| AL - Cruelty - Alabama Consolidated Cruelty Statutes | Ala. Code 1975 § 13A-11-14 - 16; § 13A-11-240 to 247; § 13A–11–260 to 264; § 13A-12-4 - 6; § 3-1-8 to 29; § 2-15-110 to 114 | AL ST § 13A-11-14 to 16; § 13A-11-240 to 247; § 13A–11–260 to 264; § 13A-12-4 - 6; § 3-1-8 to 29; § 2-15-110 to 114 | These Alabama provisions contain the state's anti-cruelty laws. The first section (under Article 1 of Chapter 11) provides that a person commits a Class A misdemeanor if he or she subjects any animal to cruel mistreatment, neglect (as long as he or she has custody of the animal), or kills or injures without good cause any animal belonging to another. However, if any person intentionally or knowingly violates Section 13A-11-14, and the act of cruelty or neglect involved the infliction of torture to the animal, that person has committed an act of aggravated cruelty and is guilty of a Class C felony. The next section (Article 11 of Chapter 11 entitled, "Cruelty to Cats and Dogs"), provides that a person commits the crime of cruelty to a dog or cat in the first degree if he or she intentionally tortures any dog or cat or skins a domestic dog or cat or offers for sale or exchange or offers to buy or exchange the fur, hide, or pelt of a domestic dog or cat. Cruelty to a dog or cat in the first degree is a Class C felony. | Statute |
| 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 |
| 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 | |
| AZ - Equine Transport - Transporting equine in a cruel manner; violation; | A. R. S. § 3-1312; § 28-912 | AZ ST § 3-1312; § 28-912 | These Arizona laws provide the requirements for transporting equines to slaughter. A vehicle used to transport equine for slaughter may have no more than one level or tier in the compartment containing the equine. Violation of the laws constitutes a misdemeanor. | Statute |