Results
| Title | Citation | Alternate Citation | Agency Citation | Summary | Type | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 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 | ||
| Robert Zauper, Plaintiff v. Michael Lababit and Jane Doe Lababit, and the marital community comprised thereof; and Does 1-10, De |
This Kitsap County, Washington judgment summary, findings of fact, and conclusions of law found defendants liable for five claims including simple negligence, strict liability, private nuisance, public nuisance, and gross negligence. In the award of damages, plaintiff received a total judgment in the amount of $75,501.09, which included $50,000 for intrinsic value and $25,000 for emotional distress. |
Pleading | ||||
| Shively v. Dye Creek Cattle Co. | 35 Cal.Rptr.2d 238 (Cal.App.3.Dist.) | 29 Cal.App.4th 1620 (Cal.App.3.Dist.) |
This California case concerned a personal injury action arising from a collision between the plaintiff's car and defendant's black Angus bull, which was lying on the highway at night. The trial court granted the defendant's motion for summary judgment. In reversing this decision, the Court of Appeal held that the open range law does not itself define the duty owners of cattle owe nor does it exempt them from the duty of ordinary care. |
Case | ||
| IN - Cattle Slaughter - DELHI AGRICULTURAL CATTLE PRESERVATION ACT, 1994 | The Act, specific to the National Capital Region of Delhi, prohibits the slaughter of agricultural cattle such as cows, calves, bulls and bullocks. The Act bans the transport of cattle from Delhi to places outside Delhi for the purpose of slaughter. Persons who wish to export cattle must apply for a permit and submit an undertaking that the cattle shall not be slaughtered. The burden of proof is on the person who is accused under the Act of the slaughter, transport, export, sale, purchase or possession of flesh of agricultural cattle. | Statute | ||||
| State v. Amos | 17 N.E.3d 9 (2017) | 2014 -Ohio- 3097 | After witnessing the 73 year old defendant-appellant emerge from area by the veterinary's dumpster holding an empty, wire cage animal trap, an employee of the clinic followed the defendant-appellant's car and obtained the vehicle's license plate number. Upon returning to the dumpster, the employee found a kitten with matted eyes that seemed unhealthy. The defendant-appellant was charged with one count of animal abandonment in violation of R.C. 959.01 and was found guilty. Defendant-appellant appealed her conviction and sentence on the grounds that the court erred in finding beyond a reasonable doubt that she was a keeper or, if she was a keeper, the court erred in determining that she abandoned the animal. The Ohio Court of Appeals held that once the defendant captured the animal in a cage, she assumed the responsibility that she would treat the animal humanely and could therefore be considered a “keeper.” Since Amos captured the animal and released it in another location without taking steps to make sure the animal would be found, the Ohio Court of Appeals also held that a reasonable person could have found beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant-appellant had “abandoned” the animal. The judgment was therefore affirmed. | Case | ||
| Canada - Saskatchewan - Dangerous Animals | S.S. 2005, c. M-36.1, s. 374 - 380 | This set of laws comprises the Saskatchewan, Canada dangerous animal laws. Under the Act, any person who owns an animal for the purpose of fighting, or trains, torments, badgers, baits or otherwise uses an animal for the purpose of causing or encouraging the animal to make unprovoked attacks on persons or domestic animals is guilty of an offence. In addition, a peace officer or designated officer may destroy any animal that he or she finds injuring or viciously attacking a person or a domestic animal. The Act outlines the actions that result in an animal being declared dangerous (i.e., chased a person in a vicious or threatening manner, bit a person or domestic animal without provocation, etc.) and the procedure to declare such an animal dangerous. | Statute | |||
| OH - Reynoldsburg - Breed - 505.35 Control and harboring of vicious or dangerous dogs and other vicious or dangerous animals. | REYNOLDSBURG, OH., CODE OF ORDINANCES §§ 505.01, 505.35 (1996) |
In Reynoldsburg, Ohio, no person shall own, keep, or harbor any vicious dog, which includes any pit bull dog. A violation is a misdemeanor of the second degree, and the vicious dog shall be seized, impounded, and humanely destroyed. |
Local Ordinance | |||
| Church of the Lukumi Babalu Aye, Inc. v. City of Hialeah | 508 U.S. 520 (1993) | 113 S.Ct. 2217 |
Local ordinance prohibiting animal sacrifices under the guise of an anti-cruelty concern was an unconstitutional infringement on church's First Amendment rights because (1) ordinances were not neutral; (2) ordinances were not of general applicability; and (3) governmental interest assertedly advanced by the ordinances did not justify the targeting of religious activity. |
Case | ||
| Derecho Animal Volume 11 Núm 1 |
|
Policy | ||||
| NC - Restaurant, animals - 2656 PHYSICAL FACILITIES | 15A NC ADC 18A.2656 | 15A NCAC 18A.2656 | This North Carolina regulation makes amendments to the Food Code related to dogs and cats in outdoor dining areas. Dogs and cats are allowed in outdoor dining areas provided the dogs or cats are physically restrained and do not pass through the indoor area of the food establishment. All live animals, including pet cats and dogs, are not permitted to come into physical contact with any serving food, serving dishes, tableware, linens, utensils, or other food service items. Employees of a food establishment who prepare or handle food must not physically contact any live animals. | Administrative |