Results
Displaying 1 - 10 of 6637
| Title | Citation | Alternate Citation | Summary | Type |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| TN - Licenses - § 68-8-107. Seizure; adoption; destruction. | T. C. A. § 68-8-107 | TN ST § 68-8-107 | This Tennessee statute mandates that any dog found running at large may be seized by any peace officer and placed in an animal shelter in counties or cities where an animal shelter or pound is available. If the dog or cat is wearing a rabies vaccination tag or other identification, all reasonable effort shall be made to locate and notify the owners who shall be required to appear within five (5) days and redeem the animal by paying a pound fee as set by the city or county legislative body. | Statute |
| Recent Animal Law Amendments and Cases |
Animal Law Amendments and Significant Cases |
Policy | ||
| Eastep v. Veterinary Medical Examining Bd. | 539 P.2d 1144 (Or.App. 1975) | 22 Or.App. 457 (1975) |
Petitioner-veterinarian sought judicial review of veterinary medical examining board's denial of his application for renewal of his license to practice, and the permanent revocation of his right to practice veterinary medicine in Oregon. The Court held that there was ample evidence ample evidence to support board's finding that petitioner was guilty of unprofessional conduct for misrepresentation to dog owner of surgical services allegedly rendered, whether the standard adopted be that of 'clear and convincing evidence,' as petitioner urges, or that of 'reliable, probative and substantial evidence' (ORS 183.480(7)(d)), as urged by respondent. |
Case |
| Colombia, Decreto 2113, 2017 | DECRETO 2113 DE 2017 | This decreto adds a chapter to Title 3, Part 14 of Book 2 of Decreto 1071, 2015 “Decreto Único Reglamentario del Sector Administrativo Agropecuario, Pesquero y de Desarrollo Rural.” This Decreto establishes the dispositions and requirements for the welfare of species for agricultural production. | Statute | |
| WA - Lost Dog - Chapter 63.21. Lost and Found Property. | West's RCWA 63.21.010 - 900 | WA ST 63.21.010 - 900 | This statutory section comprises Washington's lost property statues. | Statute |
| PA - Cruelty - Consolidated Cruelty Statutes | 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 5531 - 5561; 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 3129; 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 8340.3 | PA ST 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 5531 - 5561; PA ST 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 3129; PA ST 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 8340.3 | This document contains Pennsylvania's anti-cruelty laws that were amended in 2017 and 2018. In 2018, the state added a rescue and immunity provision for dogs and cats in "hot cars." Section 5532 covers neglect of animal and states that a person who has care of animal must provide: (1) necessary sustenance and potable water; (2) access to clean and sanitary shelter and protection from the weather; and (3) necessary veterinary care. Violation is a summary offense unless the violation causes bodily injury or puts the animal in imminent danger of bodily injury (then, it is a misdemeanor of third degree). A person commits cruelty to animals (Sec. 5533) if he or she intentionally, knowingly or recklessly illtreats, overloads, beats, abandons or abuses an animal. Aggravated cruelty is provided by Sec. 5534 and is defined as torture, or neglect or cruelty that causes serious bodily injury or death of an animal. Such conduct is a felony of the third degree. Another section creates legal presumptions with regard to tethering of a dog that relate to the length of time tethered, the type of collar/tether, and even the outside temperature (both low and high temperatures). Section 5539 makes it unlawful to transport an equine animal in or upon a vehicle with two or more levels stacked on top of one another. The state also prohibits the cropping of dogs' ears, debarking of dogs, docking of dogs' tails, performance of surgical births of dogs, and declawing of cats by persons other than veterinary doctors while the animals are anesthetized. Animal fighting is prohibited in the chapter as a felony of the third degree. Other provisions concern selling of dog and cat pelts, live animals as prizes, and harassment of service and police animals. Exemptions under the act include state game/hunting laws, the killing of a dog or cat in accordance with the Animal Destruction Method Authorization Law, the killing of an animal found pursuing domestic animals/fowl, destruction of public nuisance dogs, pest control, "[s]hooting activities not otherwise prohibited under this subchapter," and the authorized use of research animals. | Statute |
| Krcmar v. Kirkland |
Veterinarian abused dog, resulting in death. Veterinarian then tried to cover up his actions by improper disposal of body. This is a malpractice suit for damages. This is also a good example of "conspiracy of silence." |
Pleading | ||
| The International Fund for Animal Welfare (Australia) Pty Ltd and Minister for Environment and Heritage | (2005) 93 ALD 594 | (2005) 41 AAR 508; [2005] AATA 1210 |
Zoos in New South Wales and Victoria sought to import asian elephants for conservation and exhibition. The Tribunal considered whether the elephants were being imported "for the purposes of conservation breeding or propagation", the zoos were "suitably equipped to manage, confine and care for the animals, including meeting the behavioural and biological needs of the animals", the importation of the elephants would "be detrimental to, or contribute to trade which is detrimental to ... the survival .... or ... recovery in nature of" Asian elephants and whether the elephants were "obtained in contravention of, [or] their importation would ... involve the contravention of, any law". The importation was allowed. |
Case |
| IN - Domestic Violence - 34-26-5-9 Ex parte orders; authority and jurisdiction of court; relief available | I.C. 34-26-5-9 | IN ST 34-26-5-9 | This Indiana law allows a court to grant ex parte orders for protection in cases of domestic or family violence. Effective July 1, 2017, a court may grant a petitioner the exclusive possession, care, custody, or control of any animal owned, possessed, kept, or cared for by the petitioner, respondent, minor child of either the petitioner or respondent, or any other family or household member. Additionally, the court may prohibit a respondent from removing, transferring, injuring, concealing, harming, attacking, mistreating, threatening to harm, or otherwise disposing of an animal described in subdivision (c)(5). | Statute |
| People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, Inc. v. United States Department of Agriculture | 194 F. Supp. 3d 404 (E.D.N.C. 2016), aff'd sub nom. People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals v. United States Dep't of Agric., 861 F.3d 502 (4th Cir. 2017) | 2016 WL 3902745 (E.D.N.C. July 12, 2016) | In this case, People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, In.c (PETA) filed a complaint against the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) for violating the Administrative Procedure Act (APA). PETA argued that the USDA had violated the APA because the USDA has a “policy, pattern, and practice or rubber stamping” exhibitor license renewals to noncompliant animal exhibitors. Under the APA, any agency action that is found to be “arbitrary, capricious, or an abuse of discretion” must be held unlawful by the courts. The court in this case reviewed the facts of the case in accordance with the Chevron decision. According to the court in Chevron, a court must give deference to an agency if: (1) "the statutory language is silent or ambiguous with respect to the question posed," or (2) "the agency’s answer is based on a permissible construction of the statute.” The statutory language that the court considered in this case was the Animal Welfare Act (AWA) that regulate the transportation, handling, and treatment of animals. Ultimately, the court determined that the AWA was silent with regard to exhibitor renewals and therefore moved to the second step of the Chevron decision. The court found that the AWA does not prohibit the USDA’s administrative renewal process for animal exhibitor licenses. The court held that the USDA did not act arbitrarily or abuse its description when it chose to renew certain exhibitor licenses. As a result, the court rejected PETA’s claim against the USDA. | Case |