Results
| Title | Citation | Alternate Citation | Summary | Type |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Animal Law Review Vol 12 Table of Contents |
|
Policy | ||
| MD - Research - § 21-259.3. Prohibition on Testing Cosmetics on Animals | MD Code, Health - General, § 21-259.3 | This Maryland law, effective in 2022, states that a manufacturer may not sell or offer for sale in the State a cosmetic if the manufacturer knows or reasonably should have known that the final product or any individual component of the final product was developed or manufactured using animal testing that was conducted or contracted by or for the manufacturer or any entity that supplies, directly or through a third party, any ingredient used by a manufacturer in the formulation of a cosmetic on or after January 1, 2022. Limited exceptions exist. A person who violates this section is subject to a civil penalty up to a $5,000 penalty for the first offense and up to $1,000 for each subsequent offense. | Statute | |
| Baugh v. Beatty | 205 P.2d 671 (Cal.App.2.Dist.) | 91 Cal.App.2d 786 (Cal.App.2.Dist.) |
This California case is a personal injury action by Dennis Ray Baugh, a minor, by John R. Baugh, his guardian ad litem, against Clyde Beatty and others, resulting from injuries suffered by the 4-year old child after he was bitten by a chimpanzee in a circus animal tent. The court found that the instructions given were prejudicial where the jurors were told that the patron could not recover if the patron's conduct caused injury or if the conduct of the father in charge of patron caused injury; instead, the sole question for jury should have been whether patron knowingly and voluntarily invited injury because the animal was of the class of animals ferae naturae, of known savage and vicious nature. |
Case |
| VT - Swine, feral - § 3350. The disposition of feral swine | 20 V.S.A. § 3350 | VT ST T. 20 § 3350 | This law, enacted in 2020, authorizes the Department of Fish and Wildlife to destroy or euthanize a feral swine in accordance with the requirements of 10 V.S.A. § 4709(f). | Statute |
| Cottongame v. State | 2014 WL 3536801 (Tex. App. 2014), unpublished | 2014 WL 3536801 (Tex. App. July 17, 2014), MEMORANDUM OPINION DO NOT PUBLISH Tex.R.App. P. 47.2(b) | Despite an ordinance restricting the number of cats a person can own to three unless a permit was obtained, an officer decided not to enforce the ordinance against the appellant because she was helping with the feral-cat problem in the city and because “she was ... attempting to bring into compliance [her] animal rescue.” When the officer left his job, however, a neighbor complained and an investigation took place. The investigating officer noted everything in the house was covered in cat litter, there was no carpet in the home, and cat urine was on the living-room floor. The smell of cat urine and feces also sickened the officer to the point that he had to leave the house to get fresh air. The State filed a complaint alleging Appellant's violation of the ordinance. A jury found Appellant guilty of the offense as alleged in the complaint and assessed her punishment at $75 plus court costs. Appellant appealed from her conviction for violating a city ordinance regarding the number of animals that may be kept without a permit. In her first issue, the appellant asserted that her conviction violated the Privileges or Immunities Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment because the city “selectively enforced its purported ordinance that prohibits any person from having possession of more than three cats without a permit.” The court, however, found that there was no evidence before the trial court indicating that appellant was singled out for enforcement or that her selection for enforcement was based on anything other than a valid citizen complaint. In her second issue, the appellant argued that the evidence was insufficient to support her conviction. The court, however, found that the evidence was sufficient to support the jury's finding that the appellant was in violation of the ordinance. The lower court’s decision was therefore affirmed. | Case |
| Dutka v. Cassady | 2012 WL 3641635 (Not Reported in A.3d) | 2012 Conn. Super. LEXIS 1901 | A rescue organization had adopted out a dog. The new owners were walking the dog unleashed when it attacked another dog. The plaintiff's filed a complaint of common law negligence and recklessness, which alleged that the rescue organization should have known and should have warned them of the dangerous tendencies of the specific dog but failed to do so. Connecticut law imposed strict liability on an owner or keeper of such an animal, and the statute had not been expanded to include the seller or transferor. The issue then was whether the court should expand the scope of such a negligence claim and create a duty of care owed by transferors or sellers of dogs with known and/or unknown propensities for aggression. The court found that there was no support for expanding liability in common law negligence when the organization in this case did not own, possess, harbor or control the dog. The court declines to impose a duty on the rescue agency to inform adoptive families. | Case |
| VT - Cruelty - Consolidated Cruelty Statutes | 13 V.S.A. § 351 - 400; 20 V.S.A. § 2365b; 24 V.S.A. § 1943 | VT ST T. 13 § 351 - 400; VT ST T. 20 § 2365b; VT ST T. 24 § 1943 | This Vermont statutory section contains the amended anti-cruelty and animal fighting laws. Animal cruelty, as defined by § 352, occurs when a person overworks, overloads, tortures, torments, abandons, administers poison to, cruelly beats or mutilates an animal, or deprives an animal which a person owns or possesses of adequate food, water, shelter, rest, sanitation, or necessary medical attention. It is also animal cruelty if one owns, possesses, keeps or trains an animal engaged in an exhibition of fighting. The section excludes scientific research activities, hunting, farming, and veterinary activities among others. | Statute |
| CR - Fighting - Prohíbe Espectáculos e Importar Animales Pelea (Pit Bull, Peces Beta) | 11571-G |
(Text of Decree in Spanish). Prohibir en todo el territorio nacional la organización, promoción y realización de todo acto cuyo objetivo sea total o parcialmente la pelea entre animales, como por ejemplo perros APTB (American pit bul terrier), peces siameses (Beta) y cualquier otro tipo de animal normalmente reconocido como apto para pelear. |
Statute | |
| OR - Dundee - Title 6: Animals (Chapter 6.08 KEEPING OF CHICKENS) | Dundee Municipal Code §§ 6.08.010 - 6.08.040 |
In Dundee, Oregon, chickens are permitted within the city only in conformance with the following ordinances. For instance, a single-family dwelling may keep up to six chickens, and the offspring under the age of four months of these chickens, on the lot or parcel on which the dwelling resides; roosters. however, are not allowed. Additionally, these ordinances prohibit residents from slaughtering chickens within the city unless certain conidtions are met. Penalties for violations are also provided. |
Local Ordinance | |
| 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 |