Results
| Title | Citation | Alternate Citation | Summary | Type |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| ID - Idaho Falls - Title 1: General Provisions & Title 5: Criminal Code (Chapter 9: Animals) | City Code of the City of Idaho Falls §§ 1-3-5, 5-1-3, 5-9-3 to 5-9-4 |
In Idaho Falls, Idaho, any person who causes an animal to fight for amusement, or for gain, or to worry or injure each other; and any person who permits the same to be done on any premises under his charge or control; and any person who aids, abets or is present as a spectator is guilty of a misdemeanor. Additionally, any person who owns, possesses, keeps or trains any bird or animal, with the intent that such bird or animal engage in an exhibition of fighting, or any person who is present at any place, building or tenement, where preparations are being made for an exhibition of fighting of birds or animals, with the intent to be present at such exhibition, is guilty of a misdemeanor. Any person violating these provisions may be punished by imprisonment for a term not exceeding six (6) months, or by a fine not exceeding one thousand dollars ($1,000), or by both. |
Local Ordinance | |
| CA - Historical - 1872: Cruelty to Animals | Enacted February 14, 1872 (almost identical with Field's Draft, Section 699), and then read: "Every person who maliciously kills, maims, or wounds an animal, the property of another, or who maliciously and cruelly beats, tortures, or injures any animal, whether belonging to himself or another, is guilty of a misdemeanor." | Historical | ||
| In the Matter of: Richard O'Barry | 1999 NOAA LEXIS 1 | 1999 NOAA LEXIS 1 |
In 1999, civil penalties in the amount of $59,500 were assessed for the release of two dolphins from captivity. The dolphins were not prepared to survive in the wild and sustained life-threatening injuries as a result of their release. An administrative law judge found that the release of two dolphins without providing them with the necessary skills for survival resulted in harassment and injury to them, and therefore, constituted a violation of the MMPA. |
Case |
| WV - Pet Trust - § 44D-4-408. Trust for care of animal | W. Va. Code, § 44D-1-110; W. Va. Code, § 44D-4-408; W. Va. Code, § 44D-4-409 | WV ST § 44D-1-110; WV ST § 44D-4-408; WV ST § 44D-4-409 | These West Virginia statutes regulate trusts for the care of animals. A pet trust may be created to provide for the care of an animal alive during the grantor's lifetime. The trust terminates upon the death of the animal. Property of a trust may be applied only to its intended use. A trust may be enforced by a person appointed in the terms of the trust instrument or by a person appointed by the court. | Statute |
| SC - Cruelty - Consolidated Cruelty Statutes | Code 1976 § 47-1-10 - 225; Code 1976 § 16-15-120 | SC ST § 47-1-10 - 225; SC ST § 16-15-120 | This South Carolina subsection comprises the state's anti-cruelty laws. The term "animal" under this subchapter includes all living vertebrate creatures except homo sapiens (but see the exclusion section where fowl are specifically excluded). Animal cruelty occurs when a person knowingly or intentionally overloads, overdrives, overworks, ill-treats any animal, deprives any animal of necessary sustenance or shelter, inflicts unnecessary pain or suffering upon any animal, or by omission or commission knowingly or intentionally causes these things to be done. The statute also has a felony provision for the torture, tormenting, needless mutilation, cruel killing, or infliction of excessive or repeated unnecessary pain. | Statute |
| Ray and Marie Powers v. Wesley and Mary Tincher |
While plaintiff’s complaint and demand focus on the threats and alleged actions of trespass by defendants, the Common Pleas Court’s decision focuses instead on the defendant’s request for injunctive relief based on a nuisance violation. Specifically, defendants apparently alleged that plaintiff’s keeping of over one hundred roosters constituted a private nuisance. Relying on a case of similar facts, the court held that plaintiffs’ keeping of over one hundred roosters for the purpose of cockfighting constituted a private nuisance. |
Pleading | ||
| Barrington v. Colbert | CO/1273/97 |
A net was placed over one opening of a land drain and a terrier dog sent into the other entrance with the objective of prompting a fox to run into the net. Magistrates acquitted the defendants of doing an act causing unnecessary suffering to the fox contrary to the Protection of Animals Act 1911, s 1(1)(a). The Divisional Court dismissed the prosecutor's appeal, holding that, applying Rowley v Murphy [1964] 2 QB 43, the fox was not a "captive animal" within the meaning of s 15(c) of the 1911 Act, mere confinement not being sufficient, and was therefore outside the protection of that Act. |
Case | |
| CA - Divorce - § 2605. Care and ownership of pet animal | West's Ann. Cal. Fam. Code § 2605 | CA FAM § 2605 | This California law, effective January of 2019, allows to court to enter an order, at the request of a party, for a party to care for the pet animal prior to the entry of a final order. The existence of an order providing for the care of a pet animal during the course of proceedings for dissolution of marriage or for legal separation of the parties shall not have any impact on the court's final determination of ownership of the pet animal. | Statute |
| DC - Restaurant - Subchapter VII. Dining with Dogs. | DC CODE § 8-1865.01, .02 | These laws from 2018 allow food establishments in D.C. to permit dogs in outdoor dining areas of food establishments or unenclosed sidewalk cafés. These establishments must post signage outside that states dogs are permitted along with any restrictions on dogs based on size or temperament. They must also provide an entrance that does not require dogs to enter an indoor dining area or an area in which food is being stored or prepared to access the outdoor dining area and provide patrons with waste bags and a means of proper disposal. Patrons must keep their dog in a carrier or on a leash at all times and never leave the dogs unattended. | Statute | |
| VA - Ordinances - § 3.2-6537. Ordinances; penalties (pet shops) | Va. Code Ann. § 3.2-6537 | VA ST § 3.2-6537 | This Virginia statute provides that the governing body of any county, city or town may, by local ordinance, require a person operating a pet shop or operating as a dealer in companion animals to obtain a permit. It further outlines the specific requirements the ordinance may provide, including record-keeping and penalties. | Statute |