Results
| Title | Citation | Alternate Citation | Agency Citation | Summary | Type |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Rogers v. Teignbridge District Council |
A planned event called "The Creepy Crawly Show" was to have been held at a racecourse and to have involved the display and sale of small exotic animals by a number of different breeders, dealers and enthusiasts. The event's organizer applied to the local council for a pet shop licence under the Pet Animals Act 1951. The application was refused on the ground that the event was prohibited by section 2 of the Act which states that a person is guilty of an offence if he "carries on a business of selling animals as pets in any part of a street or public place, [or] at a stall or barrow in a market". The organizer's appeal to the local magistrates court was dismissed. Held: the holding of the event would have involved the carrying on a business of selling pets in a "public place". It would also have involved the selling of animals in a market. The event was therefore prohibited by section 2 and that it would have been unlawful for the local authority to have licensed it. |
Case | |||
| CR - Pets - (Decree 31626 on Pet Ownership) Reglamento para la Reproducción y Tenencia Responsable de Animales de Compañía | Decree 31626-S (2004) |
This Costa Rica law regulates the responsible ownership of pets (text provided in Spanish). |
Statute | ||
| Northern Ireland - Animal Welfare - Welfare of Animals Act (Northern Ireland) 2011 | 2011 CHAPTER 16 | An Act establishing penalties for engaging in certain activities that are considered detrimental to animal welfare in Northern Ireland. Activities that constitute offences include: causing an animal unnecessary suffering, mutilating an animal’s body, docking a dog’s tail (with certain limited exceptions), administering a poisonous or injurious substance to an animal, and engaging in or attending an animal fight. Activities lawfully done under the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986, and the normal course of fishing, hunting and (hare) coursing are exempt from the 2011 Act. Hare coursing events have since been banned in separate legislation. | Statute | ||
| U.S. v. 3,210 crusted sides of Caiman crocodilus yacare | 636 F.Supp. 1281 (S.D. Fla. 1986) |
The plaintiff, the United States of America, seeks forfeiture of the defendant, 10,870 crusted sides of Caiman crocodilus yacare, an endangered species of wildlife (hides) transported from Bolivia to the U.S. in violation of the Lacey Act, among other statutes. The court found that the testimony concerning the shrinkage of the crocodile hides during tanning did not meet the buren of the claimed owners showing by a preponderance of the evidence that the hides, which were shipped from Bolivia under the size limit imposed by Bolivian law, were not subject to the forfeiture provisions of the Lacey Act, 16 U.S.C. § 3374(a)(1) (1985). The provision of the Lacey Act at issue prohibits the interstate or foreign commerce of any wildlife taken in violation of any foreign law. |
Case | ||
| MO - Carthage - Breed - Sec. 4-5.1. Pit bulldogs prohibited. | CARTHAGE, MO., CODE § 4-5.1 |
In Carthage, Missouri, it is unlawful to keep, harbor, own or possess any pit bulldog as defined. An exception is made for pit bulldogs registered as of the effective day (Jan. 26, 1993), as long as the dog is properly confined or kept on a leash and wearing a muzzle. The owner must also take photographs of the dog for identification purposes. Any person violating the provisions may be fined up to $500. The dog may also be removed from the city. |
Local Ordinance | ||
| LOUISVILLE & N. R. CO. v. WATSON | 208 Ala. 319 (1922) | 94 So. 551 (Ala., 1922) |
On November 2, 1920, on a “moonlit night”, plaintiff was fox hunting by a railroad track when his dog was hit by the train. Plaintiff claimed that defendant’s employee negligently ran over his dog while acting within the scope of his duties as an operator of the train. The Alabama Supreme Court affirmed a jury award of $50, and held that it was proper for the plaintiff to show the excellent hunting qualities displayed by this dog to determine its market value. |
Case | |
| US - AWA - Animal Welfare; Retail Pet Stores and Licensing Exemptions | 2013 WL 5206012(F.R.) | 78 FR 57227-01 | SUMMARY: We are revising the definition of retail pet store and related regulations in order to ensure that the definition of retail pet store in the regulations is consistent with the Animal Welfare Act (AWA), thereby bringing more pet animals sold at retail under the protection of the AWA. Specifically, we are narrowing the definition of retail pet store to mean a place of business or residence at which the seller, buyer, and the animal available for sale are physically present so that every buyer may personally observe the animal prior to purchasing and/or taking custody of that animal after purchase, and where only certain animals are sold or offered for sale, at retail, for use as pets. Retail pet stores are not required to be licensed and inspected under the AWA. In addition, we are removing the limitation on the source of gross income from the licensing exemption in the regulations for any person who does not sell or negotiate the sale of any wild or exotic animal, dog, or cat and who derives no more than $500 gross income from the sale of the animals other than wild or exotic animals, dogs, or cats during any calendar year. We are also increasing from three to four the number of breeding female dogs, cats, and/or small exotic or wild mammals that a person may maintain on his or her premises and be exempt from the licensing and inspection requirements if he or she sells only the offspring of those animals born and raised on his or her premises, for pets or exhibition. This exemption applies regardless of whether those animals are sold at retail or wholesale. These actions are necessary so that all animals sold at retail for use as pets are monitored for their health and humane treatment. | Administrative | |
| Kervin v. State | 195 So. 3d 1181 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2016) | 2016 WL 3606532 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. July 6, 2016) | Donald Ray Kervin was found guilty of felony animal cruelty stemming from a 2012 incident at his residence. Animal control officers arrived to find defendant's dog "Chubbie" in a small, hot laundry room a the back of his house that emitted a "rotten-flesh odor." Chubbie was visibly wet, lying in his own feces and urine, with several open wounds infested with maggots. After questioning Kervin about the dog's injuries, defendant finally admitted to hitting Chubbie with a shovel for discipline. The dog was ultimately euthanized due to the severity of his condition. In this instant appeal, Kervin contends that the lower court erred in using the 2014 revised jury instruction to instruct the jury on the charged offense rather than the 2012 version of the instruction. Kevin argued that the 2014 version expanded the 2012 version to include the “failure to act” in felony animal cruelty cases. Also, Kervin argued that the 2012 version should have been used because it was in place at the time the offense occurred. Ultimately, the court found that the lower court did not err by using the 2014 jury instruction. The court held that the 2014 jury instructions merely “clarified” the 2012 jury instruction and that the “failure to act” was already present in the 2012 jury instruction. As a result, the court upheld Kervin’s guilty verdict. | Case | |
| AR - Lien - § 18-48-212. Sale proceeds and payments | A.C.A. § 18-48-212 | AR ST § 18-48-212 | All sales of livestock at public auction shall be for cash. The proceeds of the sale, after payments underlying debts, if any, shall, if the owners are absent or unknown, be deposited with the treasurer of the county where the sale takes place. These net proceeds shall be paid to the persons entitled to them when they properly establish ownership in, or lien upon, the livestock, either by claim of title or by claim of valid lien. | Statute | |
| Massa v. Department of Registration and Education | 507 N.E.2d 814 (Ill. 1987) | 116 Ill.2d 376 (1987) |
Dr. Massa sought judicial review of the gross malpractice finding and resulting license revocation in the circuit court after the circuit court reversed the Department's finding of gross malpractice as a conclusion against the manifest weight of the evidence. This finding arises from the death of plaintiff’s German Shepard, after Dr. Massa removed the dog’s healthy uterus and ovaries, while failing to treat the dog’s soon-to-be fatal thoracic condition. The Department's findings in this case could only be disturbed only upon Dr. Massa's showing that they are against the manifest weight of the evidence. The Court held that the record in this case was plainly sufficient to support the Department's determination of gross malpractice in that Dr. Massa ignored the serious nature of Charlie's lung condition and proceeded to remove reproductive organs which, at least at the time of surgery, he knew or should have known to have been healthy. |
Case |