Results
| Title | Citation | Alternate Citation | Agency Citation | Summary | Type |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| SD - Equine Activity Liability - Chapter 42-11. Equine Activities. | S D C L § 42-11-1 to 5 | SD ST § 42-11-1 to 5 | This act stipulates that an equine sponsor, equine professional, doctor of veterinary medicine or any other person, is immune from liability for the death or injury of a participant, which resulted from the inherent risks of equine activities. However, there are exceptions to this rule: a person will be held liable for injuries of an equine activity participant if he or she displays a willful and wanton or intentional disregard for the safety of the participant and if he or she fails to make reasonable and prudent efforts in ensuring the safety of the participant. In addition, a person will also be held liable for the injury of an equine activity participant if he or she is injured on the land or at a facility due to a dangerous latent condition of which was known to the equine sponsor, professional or other person. | Statute | |
| Non-US Topical Introductions | Policy | ||||
| State v. Mallis | 964 N.E.2d 1096 (Ohio App. 7 Dist.,2011) | 196 Ohio App.3d 640 (2011); Ohio- 4752 |
Appellant, Cheryl Mallis, appealed the judgment of the Youngstown Municipal Court convicting her on one count of failure to confine a vicious dog and one count of failure to confine a dog. She was originally charged with two counts of violating the vicious-dog statute, R.C. 955.22(D)(1), and she moved to have those charges dismissed prior to trial. The motion was overruled, and appellant now challenges that ruling on appeal. The Court of Appeals held that the state could not prosecute the dog owner for failure to confine a vicious dog under the vicious dog statute since the statute had previously been declared by the Supreme Court to be unconstitutional on its face and had not been amended or modified thereafter. |
Case | |
| People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals v. Bd. of Supervisors of Louisiana State Univ. | 387 So. 3d 527 (La. 6/28/24) | 2024 WL 3218634 (La. 6/28/24) | This case involves a dispute under the Louisiana Public Records Act, La. R.S. 44:1 et seq., concerning public records requests made by People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) to Louisiana State University (LSU) for documents related to ongoing research involving wild songbirds conducted by Dr. Christine Lattin. PETA sought various records, including veterinary care records, video recordings of experiments, and communications related to the amendment of a local bird ordinance. LSU initially withheld the records, arguing that some were exempt under federal law or protected as patentable or licensable research under La. R.S. 44:4(16)(b). The district court ruled in favor of PETA, ordering the production of most requested records, but the court of appeal partially reversed, finding that some video recordings were exempt under La. R.S. 44:4(16)(b) as they pertained to ongoing research. The Louisiana Supreme Court affirmed the appellate court’s decision, holding that LSU failed to meet its burden of proving the records were properly withheld, emphasizing the broad public right to access under the Louisiana Constitution and Public Records Law. The Court rejected LSU’s arguments that the records were exempt under federal law or as ongoing research, except for unpublished video recordings, which remained protected. The decision underscores the principle that access to public records can only be denied when a law specifically and unequivocally provides otherwise. | Case | |
| JP - Cruelty - LAW CONCERNING THE PROTECTION AND CONTROL OF ANIMALS | Law No. 105, October 1, 1973 |
Article 1 states that, "The purpose of this Law is to prescribe matters relating to the prevention of cruelty to animals, the appropriate treatment of animals and other matters relating to the protection of animals, and to engender a feeling of love for animals among the people, thereby contributing to the development of respect for life and sentiments of amity and peace; and to prescribe matters relating to the control of animals, thereby preventing harm being done by animals to human life, body and property." |
Statute | ||
| Chase v. State | 448 S.W.3d 6 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014) | 2014 WL 6478511 (Tex. Crim. App. Nov. 19, 2014) | Appellant and his wife were walking their two dogs when two neighbor dogs attacked the group. After the attack, appellant slashed the attacking dog's throat with a knife, which resulted in the dog's death. Appellant was then charged with and convicted of cruelty to non-livestock animals under Texas law. The appellant appealed to the Texas Court of Appeals and the case was reversed and remanded. The State filed a petition for discretionary review with the Court of Criminal Appeals. The issue before that court was whether § 822.013(a) of the Texas Health and Safety Code, a non-penal code, provided a defense to criminal prosecution. The court held that § 822.013(a)—which allows an attacked animal's owner or a person witnessing an attack to kill a dog that is attacking, is about to attack, or has recently attacked a domestic animal—is a defense against cruelty to non-livestock animals. The judgment of the Court of Appeals was therefore affirmed. The dissenting opinion disagreed. The dissent argued the goal of this statute was to protect farmers and ranchers against the loss of their livelihood by allowing them to protect their livestock from attacking dogs without fear of liability to the dog's owner, not to allow individuals in residential neighborhoods to kill a neighbor's dog after an attack with criminal impunity. | Case | |
| OK - Dangerous - § 717. Owner of mischievous animal which kills person | 21 Okl. St. Ann. § 717 | OK ST T. 21 § 717 | This Oklahoma law states that an owner of a "mischievous animal" who knowing its propensities allows it to go at large or does not exercise ordinary care in keeping it, will be guilty of manslaughter in the second degree if while at large it kills a human. | Statute | |
| Dauphine v. U.S. | 73 A.3d 1029 (D.C.,2013) | 2013 WL 4556546 |
Defendant, Dr. Nico Dauphine, was convicted of attempted cruelty to animals, contrary to D.C.Code §§ 22–1001, –1803 (2001). After an investigation, Dr. Dauphine was captured on surveillance video placing bromadialone, an anticoagulant rodenticide, near the neighborhood cats' food bowls. On appeal, Dauphine contended that there was insufficient evidence that she committed the crime "knowingly" with malice. This court found the inclusion of the word "knowingly" did not change the statute from a general to specific intent crime, and simply shows that the actor had no justification for his or her actions. The government met its burden to prove that appellant attempted to commit the crime of animal cruelty. |
Case | |
| OH - Initiatives - Issue 1 Prohibition of the hunting of mourning doves | Issue 1, 1998 (failed) | This state issue, rejected by voters in 1998, would have amended Section 1531.02 of the Ohio Revised Code to prohibit the hunting or taking of mourning doves in Ohio. The proposed law specifically would have amended Section 1531.02 of the Ohio Revised Code by adding the words "NO PERSON SHALL HUNT OR TAKE A MOURNING DOVE." The measure failed with only 40.5% voting for the proposition. | Statute | ||
| NH - Pet Shop - Chapter Agr 1700. Transfer of Animals and Birds. | N.H. Code Admin. R. Agr 1701.01 - 1703.02 | N.H. Code Admin. R. Agr 1702.01 - 10 | These rules establish standards for the regulation of animal health and welfare that are consistent with the pattern established in statute by the Legislature. Animal health regulation focuses on those conditions that pose a threat to public health, that would require regulatory intervention to protect the economy of the state, or both. | Administrative |