|Title||Citation||Alternate Citation||Agency Citation||Summary||Type|
|Commonwealth v. Duncan||7 N.E.3d 469, cert. denied sub nom. Duncan v. Massachusetts, 135 S. Ct. 224, 190 L. Ed. 2d 170 (2014)||467 Mass. 746 (2014)||This case deals specifically with the issue of whether or not the emergency aid exception to the warrant requirement of the Fourth Amendment extends to police action undertaken to render emergency assistance to animals. In this particular case, police officers were called to defendant’s property after a neighbor reported that two of defendant’s dogs were deceased and a third dog looked emaciated after being left outside in inclement weather. After showing up to the defendant’s home, police contacted animal control who immediately took custody of all three dogs, despite defendant not being present. The court held that the emergency aid exception did apply to the emergency assistance of animals because it is consistent with public policy that is “in favor of minimizing animal suffering in a wide variety of contexts.” Ultimately, the court determined that the emergency aid exception could be applied to emergency assistance of animals if an officer has an “objectively reasonable basis to believe that there may be an animal inside [the home] who is injured or in imminent danger of physical harm.” The matter was remanded to the District Court for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.||Case|
|MA - Cat of commonwealth - Chapter 2. Arms, Great Seal and Other Emblems of the Commonwealth.||M.G.L.A. 2 § 30||MA ST 2 § 30||The Tabby cat shall be the official cat of the Massachusetts commonwealth.||Statute|
|Canada - Ontario - Ontario Statutes - Ontario Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act||R.S.O. 1990, c. O.36, s. 1 - 19||
This set of laws comprises Ontario, Canada's Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act. The object of the Society is to facilitate and provide for the prevention of cruelty to animals and their protection and relief therefrom. The laws outline the requirements for formation and operation of the Society as well as the guidelines under which members can assist animals in distress. Section 15 provides the standards of care for keeping cats or dogs for breeding or sale. 2015 amendments include the prohibition on the sale, purchase, and breeding of orcas.
|NC - Edenton - Breed - Vicious Dogs||EDENTON, N.C., CODE OF ORDINANCES § 90.43||
In Edenton, North Carolina, it is unlawful to keep, harbor, own or possess any potentially vicious dog, which includes pit bulls, Rottweilers, and Chows. There are exceptions for dogs registered on the effective date, provided that the owner uses a leash and muzzle on the dog, keeps it properly confined, posts “Beware of Dog” signs, takes identification photographs, sterilizes the dog, and complies with reporting requirements. Failure to comply may result in seizure and impoundment of the dog.
|US - Air travel, service animals - Guidance Concerning the Carriage of Service Animals in Air Transportation Into the United Kingdom||2007 WL 555627 (F.R.)||FR Doc. E7-3195||
This notice publishes guidance concerning the carriage of service animals in air transportation from the United States (U.S.) to the United Kingdom (U.K.). These guidelines address the differences between U.K. laws regulating the transport of service animals on flights into the U.K. and U.S. law with respect to the carriage of service animals in air transportation. U.K. laws affecting the transport of service animals in air travel differ significantly from the requirements of the Air Carrier Access Act (ACAA), 49 U.S.C. 41705, and its implementing regulation in 14 CFR Part 382, resulting in uncertainty for carriers and persons with disabilities about the requirements that apply on flights into or transiting the U.K.
|Naruto v. Slater (PETA)||This complaint addresses what has come to be known as the "Monkey Selfie" case. People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, Inc. (PETA) and Antje Engelhardt, Ph.D., as Plaintiff's next friends, filed this lawsuit on behalf of Plaintiff Naruto, a six-year-old male member of the Macaca nigra species (also known as a crested macaque) who lives in the Tangkoko Reserve on the island of Sulawesi, Indonesia. In 2011, Naruto took a number of photographs of himself, including one that became famous as the “Monkey Selfie.” In 2014, Defendant Slater and Defendant Blurb, Inc. published and sold a book in the United States that contained copies of the Monkey Selfies and stated in that book that Slater and Defendant Wildlife Personalities, Ltd. are the copyright owners of the Monkey Selfies. In this complaint, PETA contends that the Monkey Selfies "resulted from a series of purposeful and voluntary actions by Naruto, unaided by Slater, resulting in original works of authorship not by Slater, but by Naruto." Thus, according to PETA, Naruto has rights to the Monkey Selfies and owns that copyright. PETA observes that "while the claim of authorship by species other than homo sapiens may be novel, 'authorship' under the Copyright Act, 17 U.S.C. § 101 et seq., is sufficiently broad so as to permit the protections of the law to extend to any original work, including those created by Naruto." As a result, PETA argues that Naruto should be afforded the protection of a claim of ownership, and the right to recover damages and other relief for copyright infringement. PETA also seeks to enjoin and restrain Defendants from copying, licensing, or distributing the Monkey Selfies and claims damages on behalf of Naruto for the unauthorized use of the pictures.||Pleading|
|MO - Exotic pet - 578.023. Keeping a dangerous wild animal, penalty||V. A. M. S. 578.023||MO ST 578.023||This Missouri law states that no person may keep any lion, tiger, leopard, ocelot, jaguar, cheetah, margay, mountain lion, Canada lynx, bobcat, jaguarundi, hyena, wolf, bear, nonhuman primate, coyote, any deadly, dangerous, or poisonous reptile, or any deadly or dangerous reptile over eight feet long, in any place other than a properly maintained zoological park, circus, scientific, or educational institution, research laboratory, veterinary hospital, or animal refuge, unless such person has registered such animals with the local law enforcement agency in the county in which the animal is kept. Violation is a class C misdemeanor.||Statute|
Animal Legal & Historical Web Center
|Cole v. Ladbroke Racing Michigan, Inc.||614 N.W.2d 169 (Mich. 2000)||
Plaintiff, a licensed horse exercise rider sued the operator of a horse racing facility after he had been injured when he was thrown off a horse that he had been exercising, when the horse became spooked by a kite on the Defendant’s premises. The court determined that the Equine Activity Liability Act (EALA) did not offer protection of immunity to the Defendant because the exercising was found to be an activity in preparation for a horse race and the EALA does not apply to “horse race meetings.” However, the Plaintiff had previously signed a release, which covered “all risks of any injury that the undersigned may sustain while on the premises,” therefore, the Defendant was released from liability of negligence.
|Brazil - Federal Decree on Anti-Cruelty||
This is a short summary of the federal decree that gives federal jurisdiction over some domestic animal issues.