Results
| Title | Citation | Alternate Citation | Agency Citation | Summary | Type |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| OK - Fur/Trapping - Part 5. Trapping | 29 Okl. St. Ann. § 5-501 - 504 | OK ST T. 29 § 5-501 - 504 | Oklahoma repealed two statutes related to trapping. Formerly, under these now repealed Oklahoma statutes, no person could trap on the land of another without a written permit. Only certain traps were allowed and traps must have been tended once every 24 hours. A conviction was punished by a fine of $25-200. The state kept the law that states that all persons engaged in the business of buying raw pelts must keep a daily register. A conviction is punished by a fine of $10-$50. | Statute | |
| MN - Equine Activity Liability - 604A.12. Livestock activities; immunity from liability. | M. S. A. § 604A.12 | MN ST § 604A.12 | This Minnesota statute comprises the state's equine activity liability statute. The act is not limited to equines, but rather extends protection from liability to participants engaged in "livestock activities." It is important to note that this provision and exemption from liability applies only to non-profit entities. Liability is not limited where the livestock professional knowingly used faulty tack, the person failed to reasonable care to protect the participant from a known, human-made dangerous condition, the person is a livestock activity sponsor and fails to comply with the notice requirement, or the act or omission of the person was willful or negligent. | Statute | |
| Hodge v. State | Hodge v. State, 79 Tenn. 528 (1883). |
The indictment charged that the defendant unlawfully and needlessly mutilated a dog by setting a steel-trap in a bucket of slop and catching the dog by the tongue, and that great pain and torture were unlawfully and needlessly inflicted upon the dog. Defendant argued that a dog had been invading his property and destroying hens' nests for a long time. Witnesses testified that the dog had a bad character for prowling about through the neighborhood at night. The court reversed and remanded for a new trial, finding that defendant had a right to protect his premises against such invasions, and to adopt such means as were necessary for that purpose. There was no evidence that the slop used by defendant was such as was calculated or likely to lure dogs away from the premises where they belonged on to his premises or within his enclosures. If the dog was in the habit of committing the depredations, defendant had a right to set a steel-trap for the purpose of capturing him, and if, while committing the nightly depredations the dog was thus caught and mutilated, it was not needless torture or mutilation within the meaning of the Act, and the jury should have been so instructed. The indictment charged that the defendant unlawfully and needlessly mutilated a dog by setting a steel-trap in a bucket of slop and catching the dog by the tongue, and that great pain and torture were unlawfully and needlessly inflicted upon the dog. Defendant argued that a dog had been invading his property and destroying hens' nests for a long time. Witnesses testified that the dog had a bad character for prowling about through the neighborhood at night. The court reversed and remanded for a new trial, finding that defendant had a right to protect his premises against such invasions, and to adopt such means as were necessary for that purpose. There was no evidence that the slop used by defendant was such as was calculated or likely to lure dogs away from the premises where they belonged on to his premises or within his enclosures. If the dog was in the habit of committing the depredations, defendant had a right to set a steel-trap for the purpose of capturing him, and if, while committing the nightly depredations the dog was thus caught and mutilated, it was not needless torture or mutilation within the meaning of the Act, and the jury should have been so instructed. The court reversed defendant's conviction for cruelty to animals and granted a new trial. |
Case | ||
| State v. Anello | Not Reported in N.E.2d, 2007 WL 2713802 (Ohio App. 5 Dist.) | 2007 -Ohio- 4822 |
In this Ohio case, after police received a complaint about possible neglect of dogs located in a barn, an officer went to investigate and entered the barn through an unlocked door. The Humane Society then assisted the department in seizing forty-two dogs. Defendant-Anello was convicted by jury of two counts of animal cruelty. On appeal, defendant contended that the trial court erred in denying the motion to suppress illegally obtained evidence: to wit, the dogs from the barn. The appellate court disagreed, finding that the barn was not included within the curtilage of the residence since it was leased by a different person than the owner of the house (who had moved out of state). Further, the plain view/exigent circumstances exceptions came into play where the officers heard barking, smelled "overwhelming" urine odors, and observed through a window seventeen animals confined in cages that were stacked three high while the temperature outside was eighty degrees with high humidity. |
Case | |
| Ecuador - Stray animals - Ley 67, 2006 | Ley 67, 2006, Ecuador | The excerpt from the organic law for health corresponds to the treatment of companion and stray animals. Article 123 establishes that domestic animal owners must vaccinate their animals against rabies and other diseases the health authority considers a risk to human health. Owners are also responsible for keeping their animals in conditions that do not risk human health and environmental hygiene. Under the same article, municipalities, in coordination with the health authority, control and handle stray animals. | Statute | ||
| MA - Pet Shop - Chapter 12.00: Licensing and Operation of Pet Shops. | Mass. Regs. Code tit. 330, § 12.01 - 12.09 | 330 CMR 12.01 to 12.10 | These Massachusetts regulations provide provisions regarding the licensing and operation of pet stores; the licensee's responsibility towards the animals within the pet store; the licensee's restrictions on animal sales; and the government's inspection of the pet store's premises, amongst other topics. | Administrative | |
| People v. Johnson | 889 N.W.2d 513 (2016), appeal denied, 500 Mich. 951, 891 N.W.2d 231 (2017) | 315 Mich. App. 163, 2016 WL 1576933 (Mich. App. Apr. 19, 2016) | This case involves challenges to the courtroom procedure of allowing a witness to be accompanied on the witness stand by a support animal. Defendant Johnson appealed his convictions of criminal sexual assault after he was convicted of assaulting his six-year-old niece. During Defendant's trial, a black Labrador retriever was permitted, to accompany the six-year-old victim to the witness stand. On appeal, the Defendant first argued that his trial counsel was ineffective for failing to object to the use of a support animal because MCL 600.2163a(4) only allows a support person. The Court of Appeals of Michigan stated that the trial court had the inherent authority to utilize support animals. Secondly, the Defendant argued that trial counsel should have objected to the notice of a support person on the basis that allowing the witnesses to testify accompanied by the support animal violated his constitutional right to due process. The Court of Appeals stated that there is no indication that the support dog used was visible to the jury, or that he barked, growled, or otherwise interrupted the proceedings. Therefore, the objection was meritless. Next, the Defendant argued that his counsel was ineffective for failing to request various procedural protections if the support animal was used. The Court of Appeals stated that the use of a support dog did not implicate the Confrontation Clause; the presence of the dog did not affect the witnesses' competency to testify or affect the oath given to the witnesses; the witnesses were still subject to cross-examination; and the trier of fact was still afforded the unfettered opportunity to observe the witnesses' demeanor. Finally, the Defendant argued that a limiting instruction should have been provided to the jury when the support animal was utilized and this rendered his counsel ineffective. The Court of Appeals stated, that there are no Michigan jury instructions addressing the use of a support animal. Counsel was then not ineffective in failing to ask for an instruction that does not yet exist in Michigan. The Court of Appeals affirmed the defendant's convictions and sentence and remanded. | Case | |
| US - AWA - 2014 Public Law113-79 | 2014 PL 113-79 | The 2014 amendments to the Animal Welfare Act allows the Secretary of agriculture to define de minimis, as well as several grammatical changes. The public law also provides the prohibits anyone from allowing a person who has not attained the age of 16 from attending an animal fighting venture. | Statute | ||
| NJ - Impound - Chapter 19. Dogs, Taxation and Liability for Injuries Caused by | NJSA 4:19-26 | NJ ST 4:19-26 | This New Jersey statute provides that, if a dog is declared vicious or potentially dangerous, the owner of the dog shall be liable to the municipality in which the dog is impounded for the costs and expenses of impounding and destroying the dog. The municipality may establish by ordinance a schedule of these costs and expenses. | Statute | |
| MA - Pet Trust - Chapter 203. Trusts. | M.G.L.A. 203E § 408 | MA ST 203E § 408 (formerly MA ST 203 § 3C) | In 2011, Massachusetts enacted this law, which allows the creation of a trust for the continuing care of an animal alive during the settlor's lifetime. The trust terminates upon the death of the last animal named in the trust. A court may reduce the amount of property held by the trust if it determines that the amount substantially exceeds the amount required for the intended use and the court finds that there will be no substantial adverse impact in the care, maintenance, health or appearance of the covered animal. The statute was renumbered in 2012. | Statute |