Results
| Title | Citation | Alternate Citation | Summary | Type |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| IN - Cow Slaughter - THE GUJARAT ANIMAL PRESERVATION ACT, 1954 | LXXII of 1954 | The Act, specific to the western Indian state of Gujarat, prohibits the slaughter of cattle. A person transporting cattle from one region or the state to another is deemed to be transporting them for slaughter unless they are able to prove otherwise. Persons are prohibited from selling, storing, transporting or offering for sale beef or beef products. Animals other than cattle may be slaughtered, but may be slaughtered only after a certificate is issued by the Competent Authority. Offences under this Act are cognizable—this means that offenders may be arrested without a warrant. Offences under this Act carry with them imprisonment or fines. | Statute | |
| City of Cleveland v. Turner | --- N.E.3d ----, 2019 WL 3974089 (Ohio Ct. App., 2019) | 2019-Ohio-3378 (2019) | Defendant was convicted by bench trial of one count of sexual conduct with an animal (bestiality) in violation of R.C. 959.21(B). He was sentenced to 90 days in jail (with credit for time served), a $750 fine, with five years of inactive community control that included no contact with animals and random home inspections by the Animal Protection League (APL). The evidence supporting his conviction came from explicit letters defendant wrote to his boyfriend (who was incarcerated at the time) that described acts of bestiality. Defendant was also a sex offender parolee at the time of the letter writing. The letter, which was intercepted by jail officials, recounted a sexual act defendant engaged in with a dog that was under his care. Other similarly explicit letters were entered as evidence. In addition to the letters, the dog's owner testified that she left her dog with defendant and, after picking up the dog, the dog's behavior markedly changed from friendly to anxious and afraid. In addition, the dog was skittish for many days after, licked her genitals excessively, and was uncomfortable with any person near her backside, including the veterinarian. On appeal, defendant contends that the court erred by admitting his extrajudicial statements without independent evidence of a crime. Specifically, defendant contends the city failed to establish the corpus delicti to permit introduction of his purported confession. The court noted that this was a case of first impression since there is no Ohio case law that has analyzed the corpus delicti issue in the context of R.C. 959.21. Relying on the Indiana case of Shinnock v. State, 76 N.E.3d 841 (Ind.2017), this court found that while there was no direct evidence of a crime against the dog, the circumstantial evidence corroborates defendant's statements in his letter. The corpus delicti rule requires that the prosecution supply some evidence of a crime to admit the extrajudicial statements. Here, the city did that with the dog owner's testimony concerning the dog's altered behavior after being left alone with defendant. The court also found the evidence, while circumstantial, withstood a sufficiency of evidence challenge by defendant on appeal. On the issue of sentencing and random home inspections as a condition of his community control sanctions, the court found that the trial court did not have "reasonable grounds" to order warrantless searches of real property for a misdemeanor conviction. The finding of guilt for defendant's bestiality conviction was affirmed, but the condition of community control sanction regarding random home inspections was reversed and remanded. | Case |
| Canada - P.E.I. Statutes - Animal Health and Protection Act | S.P.E.I. 1988, c. 11, s. 1 - 20 | This set of laws comprises the Prince Edward Island (PEI) Animal Health and Protection Act. The object of the Act is to promote animal health and to eradicate, prevent or control the spread of disease among animals in the province. The Act gives broad authority to inspectors in ascertaining the presence of disease. | Statute | |
| NY - Larchmont - Breed - Article IV. Pit Bull. Terriers. | LARCHMONT, NY., CODE OF THE VILLAGE OF LARCHMONT §§ 97-19 - 97-26 (1998) |
In Larchmont, New York, no person may sell, purchase, possess, rent, lease or harbor a pit bull terrier with exceptions for registered dogs. Registration requirements include proof of $500,000 liability insurance, properly confining or securing the dog, and posting notice signs. Failure to comply could result in imprisonment of up to six month and/or a fine of up to $1,000. |
Local Ordinance | |
| Zimmerman v. Robertson | 854 P.2d 338 (Mont. 1993) |
Plaintiff horse owner sought review of a judgment by the District Court of Yellowstone County, Thirteenth Judicial District (Montana), which entered a directed verdict in favor of defendant veterinarian on the owner's claims of professional negligence. On appeal, the court affirmed the trial court's decision, holding that the owner was required to prove the veterinarian's negligence by expert testimony, and that he failed to do so. In addition, the court The court found that the "defendant's admissions" exception to the expert testimony requirement did not apply because the veterinarian did not admit that he deviated from the standard of care. |
Case | |
| WA - Leasing - 63.10.070. Dog or cat ownership contracts | West's RCWA 63.10.070; West's RCWA 63.14.127; West's RCWA 31.04.430 | In 2019, Washington enacted legislation prohibiting the sale of a dog or cat through an installment agreement. This resulted in three different new laws corresponding to different types of sales agreements. Essentially, a contract or retail installment contract entered into on or after July 28, 2019, to transfer ownership of a live dog or cat in which ownership is contingent upon the making of payments over a period of time subsequent to the transfer of possession of the live dog or cat is void and unenforceable. | Statute | |
| Journal of Animal Law Table of Contents Volume 1 |
|
Policy | ||
| New Jersey Society for Prevention of Cruelty to Animals v. Board of Education | 219 A.2d 200 (N.J. Super. Ct. 1966) |
In this action, the New Jersey Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, sought recovery against the Board of Education of the City of East Orange of penalties of the rate of $100 per alleged violation arising out of cancer-inducing experiments conducted by a student in its high school upon live chickens. By permission of the court, defendants, New Jersey Science Teachers’ Association and National Society for Medical Research Inc. were permitted by the court to participate as amicus curiae. The court found that because the board did not obtain authorization from the health department, an authorization which the health department did not think was needed, it was not thereby barred from performing living animal experimentation. The court concluded that the experiment at issue was not per se needless or unnecessary, and that such experiment did not fall within the ban of N.J. Stat. Ann. § 4:22-26 against needless mutilation, killing, or the infliction of unnecessary cruelty. |
Case | |
| Lincecum v. Smith | 287 So.2d 625 (1973) |
Despite "Good Samaritan" intent, the defendant was liable for conversion where he authorized a sick puppy's euthanasia without first making reasonable efforts to locate its owner. The court also awarded $50 for the puppy's replacement value and $100 for mental anguish and humiliation. |
Case | |
| Ranchers Cattleman Action Legal Fund United Stockgrowers of America v. U.S. Dept. of Agriculture | 415 F.3d 1078 (9th Cir. 2005) | 35 Envtl. L. Rep. 20,152, 05 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 6469, 2005 Daily Journal D.A.R. 8875 |
The court was presented with the question of whether the district court erred in issuing a preliminary injunction prohibiting the implementation of a regulation of the United States Department of Agriculture ("USDA") permitting the resumption of the importation of Canadian cattle into the United States. The court concluded that it did and therefore reversed the district court. |
Case |