Results
| Title | Citation | Alternate Citation | Agency Citation | Summary | Type |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| NH - Lien - 448:2-a Lien for Food and Care | N.H. Rev. Stat. § 448:2-a | NH ST § 448:2-a | Any person or carrier who transports animals shall have a lien upon such animals for food, care, and custody furnished, and is not liable for their detention. | Statute | |
| WA - Disaster Planning - Washington State Emergency Operations Plan | Washington State Comprehensive Emergency Management Plan | The Washington State Comprehensive Emergency Operations Plan (CEMP) includes Emergency Support Function #6 and #11, which concerns service animals and pets. The plan also defines "animal," "household pet," and "service animal." | Administrative | ||
| MI - Livestock - Chapter 287. Animal Industry. Animal Industry Act | M. C. L. A. 287.701 - 747 | MI ST 287.701 - 747 | This Michigan act is known as the "Animal Industry Act." The act is intended to protect the health, safety, and welfare of humans and animals, by requiring disease testing of imported animals, certification, and reporting of infected animals. A newly amended section (287.746) also concerns the tethering or confinement of animals such as pregnant sows and veal calves in manners that restrict lying, standing, fully extending limbs, or turning freely. | Statute | |
| Animal Legal and Historical Center Website |
On this site you will find a comprehensive repository of information about animal law, including: over 1200 full text cases (US, historical, and UK), over 1400 US statutes, over 60 topics and comprehensive explanations, legal articles on a variety of animal topics and an international collection. |
Basic page | |||
| GA - Veterinary - Veterinary Practice Code | Ga. Code Ann., § 43-50-1 to 110 | GA ST § 43-50-1 to 110 | These are the state's veterinary practice laws. Among the provisions include licensing requirements, laws concerning the state veterinary board, veterinary records laws, and the laws governing disciplinary actions for impaired or incompetent practitioners. The chapter was recently amended in 2018. | Statute | |
| Hammer v. American Kennel Club | 803 N.E.2d 766 (N.Y., 2003) | 1 N.Y.3d 294; 771 N.Y.S.2d 493, 2003 N.Y. Slip Op. 19691 (2003) |
Plaintiff sought both declaratory and injunctive relief against the American Kennel Club (AKC) for use of standards in dog show competitions for Brittany Spaniel dogs that require the docking of their tails. The issue in this appeal is whether Agriculture and Markets Law § 353 grants plaintiff, who wishes to enter his dog and compete without penalty in breed contests, a private right of action to preclude defendants from using a standard that encourages him to "dock" his Brittany Spaniel's tail. The Court of Appeals concluded that it would be inconsistent with the applicable legislative scheme to imply a private right of action in plaintiff's favor because the statute does not, either expressly or impliedly, incorporate a method for private citizens to obtain civil relief. In light of the comprehensive statutory enforcement scheme, recognition of a private civil right of action is incompatible with the mechanisms chosen by the Legislature. |
Case | |
| Austin v. Bundrick | 935 So.2d 836 (La.App. 2 Cir. 2006) | 41,064 (La.App. 2 Cir. 6/30/06), 2006 WL 1791161 (La.App. 2 Cir.) |
This Louisiana case involves a suit against the owner of a cow (Bundrick) that wandered into the road where it was struck by plaintiff Austin's vehicle. Bundrick and his insurer, Colony Insurance Company, appealed the partial summary judgment finding Bundrick liable for the damages resulting from the accident. In reversing the lower court's order for partial summary judgment and remanding for a trial on the merits, the court noted that it is well settled that when an auto strikes a cow on one of the enumerated "stock law" highways, the burden of proof rests upon the owner of the animal to exculpate himself from even the slightest degree of negligence. |
Case | |
| FL - Exotic Pets - 68-5.008. Amnesty for Persons Relinquishing Non-native Pets. | Fla. Admin. Code r. 68-5.008 | Rule 68-5.008, F.A.C. | This rule provides amnesty to non-native pet owners who voluntarily relinquish their illegal animals to state or county wildlife agencies or during Commission-sponsored amnesty events. | Administrative | |
| Night monkeys used in malaria research in a small, soiled, and rusty cage | Slideshow Images | ||||
| N.Y. Pet Welfare Ass'n, Inc. v. City of N.Y. | 850 F.3d 79 (2d Cir. 2017) |
In 2015, New York City enacted a group of laws aimed at dealing with problems associated with the companion animal business in the city by regulating the sale of dogs and cats in pet shops. On the day the laws were to go into effect, the New York Pet Welfare Association (NYPWA) filed suit challenging two of the laws. The first law, the “Sourcing Law,” required that pet shops sell only animals acquired from breeders holding a Class A license issued under the federal Animal Welfare Act (AWA). The second law law, the “Spay/Neuter Law,” required that pet shops sterilize each animal before releasing it to a consumer. NYPWA argued that the Sourcing Law violated the “dormant” Commerce Clause and is preempted by the AWA, and that the Spay/Neuter Law is preempted by New York law. The district court dismissed NYPWA’s complaint and the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the district court’s decision. First, the 2nd Circuit determined that the Sourcing Law did not violate the Commerce Clause because it did not discriminate against interstate commerce. The 2nd Circuit found that the Sourcing Law may make it difficult for certain out of state breeders to sell to city shops, but so long as breeders from other states are allowed to sell in the city, then it is not considered to be discriminatory. Also, the 2nd Circuit found that NYPWA was unable to show that any incidental burden that the Sourcing Law placed on out of state breeders was excessive and therefore the law passed under the Pike Balancing test. Lastly, the 2nd Circuit determined that the Spay/Neuter Law was not preempted by New York Law because NYPWA failed to identify a single New York statute or case that suggests that the new law would be preempted in any way. As a result, the 2nd Circuit affirmed the district court’s ruling. |
Case |