Results
| Title | Citation | Alternate Citation | Summary | Type |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| The Future of Animal Law |
The Future of Animal Law, David Favre, Professor, Michigan State University College of Law, Edward Elgar Publishing (2021).
|
Policy | ||
| VA - Cruelty - Article 7. Animal Control Officers and Humane Investigators. | Va. Code Ann. § 3.2-6555 - 3.2-6569 | VA ST § 3.2-6555 - 3.2-6569 | These chapters relate to the qualifications and duties of animal control officers and the procedures for impounding stray animals. | Statute |
| OK - Game Animals - Part 4. Protected Game. § 5-410. Hawks; falcons; owls; eagles | 29 Okl. St. Ann. § 5-410 | OK ST T. 29 § 5-410 | Oklahoma law prohibits the knowing and willful killing or molestation of hawks, falcons, owls, or eagles, or their nests, eggs, or young. The only exceptions to this prohibition are the taking of a hawk or owl in the act of destroying domestic birds or fowl, or the use of hawks, owls, falcons, or eagles by licensed falconers. | Statute |
| State v. Claiborne | State v. Claiborne, 505 P.2d 732 (Kan. 1973) |
Animals -- Cruelty to Animals -- Cockfighting -- Gamecocks Not Animals -- No Statutory Prohibition Against Cockfights -- Statute Not Vague. In an action filed pursuant to K. S. A. 60-1701 in which the state seeks a construction of K. S. A. 1972 Supp. 21-4310 (cruelty to animals) making its provisions applicable to cockfighting, the record is examined and for reasons appearing in the opinion it is held: (1) Gamecocks are not animals within the meaning or contemplation of the statute. (2) There is no clear legislative intent that gamecocks be included within the category of animals protected by the statute. (3) The statute does not apply to or prohibit the conducting of cockfights. (4) As construed, the statute is not so vague, indefinite and uncertain as to violate the requirements of due process. |
Case | |
| Tarquinio v. City of Lakewood, Ohio (unpublished) | Slip Copy, 2011 WL 4458165 (N.D.Ohio) |
Plaintiffs sought a declaratory judgment from the court that Lakewood City Ordinance (“LCO”) 506.01, which bans pit bull dogs or those dogs with "appearance and characteristics of being predominantly of such breeds," unconstitutional under the Ohio Constitution Home Rule provisions. In this motion, plaintiffs argue that LCO 506 conflicts with and impermissibly expands the provisions of Ohio Revised Code § 955.22. The court found that while § 955.22 outlines requirements that must be met by a person who houses vicious dogs, including all pit bulls, it does not explicitly permit pit bulls. The court found that the General Assembly intended to allow municipalities to regulate the possession of pit bulls. |
Case | |
| 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 | ||
| TN - Equine Activity Liability - Chapter 20. Equine Activities--Liability | T. C. A. § 44-20-101 to 105 | TN ST § 44-20-101 to 105 | This act stipulates that an equine sponsor or equine professional, or any other person, including corporations and partnerships, are 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, corporation, or partnership 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 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 |
| NH - Dogs - Consolidated Dog Laws | N.H. Rev. Stat. § 3:25; § 4:13-s; § 466:1 - 466:54; 47:17; 207:11 - 207:13b; 210:18; 264:31; 436:99 - 436:109; 437:1 - 437:22; 437-A:1 - 9; 508:18-a; § 644:8-f | NH ST § 3:25; § 4:13-s; § 466:1 - 466:54; 47:17; 207:11 - 207:13b; 210:18; 264:31; 436:99 - 436:109; 437:1 - 437:22; 437-A:1 - 9; 508:18-a; § 644:8-f | These New Hampshire statutes comprise the state's dog laws. Among the provisions include licensing requirements, dangerous dog laws, and the rabies control code. | Statute |
| Mouton v. State | 2008 WL 4709232 (Tex.App.-Texarkana) |
Defendant was convicted of cruelty to an animal, and sentenced to one year in jail, based upon witness testimony and photographs depicting several dogs in varying states of distress. On appeal, the Court of Appeals of Texas, Texarkana, found that the trial court did not err in denying Defendant’s motions for a directed verdict or for a new trial to the extent that both motions challenged evidentiary sufficiency, and that ineffective assistance of counsel had not been shown, because the Court could imagine strategic reasons on Defendant’s counsel’s part for not calling a particular witness to testify on Defendant’s behalf, and for allowing Defendant to testify in narrative form during the punishment phase. |
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 |
