Results
| Title | Citation | Alternate Citation | Summary | Type |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| WA - Research - 18.92.270 Higher education facilities--Dogs and cats used for research--Adoption | West's RCWA 18.92.270 | WA ST 18.92.270 | This 2019 law from Washington states that a higher education facility that utilizes dogs or cats for research and receives public funding must make reasonable efforts to offer the dog or cat for adoption upon conclusion of the animal's use for research. The attending veterinarian or designee must assess the health of the dog or cat to determine whether it is suitable for adoption. A facility that offers dogs or cats for adoption to an animal care and control agency or an animal rescue group under this section may enter into an agreement to facilitate adoptions. | Statute |
| NH - Domestic Violence - Chapter 173-B. Protection of Persons from Domestic Violence | N.H. Rev. Stat. § 173-B:1, 173:B4, 173:B5 | NH ST §§ 173-B:1, 173:B4, 173:B5 | New Hampshire now considers animal cruelty to be “abuse” under its protection of persons from domestic violence statute. The law now allows a judge to grant the petitioner of a protective order exclusive care, custody, or control of any animal owned, possessed, leased, kept, or held by the victim, the abuser, or a minor child in the household; the law also allows a judge to order the abuser to stay away from the pet in both temporary and final domestic violence protective orders. | Statute |
| CA - Fighting - § 597d. Fighting animals or birds; entries and arrests without warrant | West's Ann. Cal. Penal Code § 597d | CA PENAL § 597d | This provision allows for law enforcement officers to enter any place, building, or tenement, where there is an exhibition of the fighting of birds or animals, or where preparations are being made for such an exhibition, and, without a warrant, arrest all persons present. | Statute |
| Canada - Newfoundland and Labrador Statutes - Dog Act(Repealed) | R.S.N. 1990, c. D-26, s. 1 - 15(2)(Repealed) |
This act was replaced by the Animal Health and Protection Act in 2010. This set of laws comprises the Newfoundland and Labrador Dog Act. Under the Act, an owner of a dog must keep it safely tethered or penned up at all times unless on a leash, herding sheep, or hunting with an owner. The minister may in writing authorize a person to destroy dogs found at large in the province. Notably, a person shall not bring into or keep on the island a dog either wholly or partly of the breed native to Labrador, commonly known as Eskimo or Husky, unless he or she has obtained a permit. A person who contravenes this Act or accompanying regulations is guilty of an offence. |
Statute | |
| Center for Biological Diversity v. Kempthorne | 2008 WL 4542947 (N.D.Cal.) |
Plaintiffs brought various claims against Defendants relating to Defendants’ final rule designating the polar bear as a threatened species under the Endangered Species Act (ESA), and Defendants’ promulgation of a special rule under section 4(d) of the ESA, allowing certain activities with respect to the polar bear that might otherwise be prohibited. The United States District Court, N.D. California tentatively granted a non-profit organization’s motion to intervene with respect to the action challenging Defendants’ section 4(d) rule as contrary to the ESA, finding that although the Organization did not show that the current Plaintiffs will not adequately represent the Organization’s interest, a decision for Defendants could jeopardize the Organization’s interests and the Organization’s motion was timely. |
Case | |
| U.S. v. Smith | 29 F.3d 270 (7th Cir. 1994) |
Defendant was convicted of possessing Bald Eagle feathers in violation of Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) after receiving the feathers in the mail from a friend to complete a craft project. On appeal, defendant challenged her conviction, alleging that she did not possess the requisite knowledge and that the act itself was vague as to the level of intent, or scienter . The court affirmed defendant's conviction finding that the evidence established that defendant knowingly possessed eagle feathers in violation of MBTA, the conviction did not amount to punishment of wholly passive conduct contrary to defendant's suggestion, and that MBTA was not vague nor overbroad with regard to intent. For further discussion on the intersection of the MBTA and the Eagle Act, see Detailed Discussion of the Eagle Act . |
Case | |
| Map of States with Laws on Fraudulent Assistance Animals | This map covers states with laws on fraudulent assistance animals in housing. These laws establish a procedure for requesting an emotional support animal or other assistance animal in housing for a person with a disability and also establish a penalty for fraudulently claiming an assistance animal. As of 2024, only sixteen (16) states have such laws. This laws are different from laws that penalize individuals for falsely presenting their pets as service animals in places of public accommodation (that map can be found here). | State map | ||
| WA - Initiatives - Initiative Measure No. 1130 (AN ACT Relating to the prevention of farm animal cruelty) | Initiative Measure No. 1130 (2011) | This measure would prohibit confining egg-laying hens, as defined, in stacked cages or cages that prevent hens from turning around freely, lying down, standing up, or fully extending their wings. It would also prohibit selling eggs produced by hens thus confined. Violations would be a gross misdemeanor. The measure would not apply to medical research, veterinary treatment, transportation, certain temporary confinements, exhibitions, or during humane slaughter. The measure would take effect on January 1, 2018. Due to changes in signature requirements announced by the Washington Secretary of State to avoid duplication or error, the initiative did not receive an adequate number of signatures to appear on the ballot. | Statute | |
| European Convention for the Protection of Animals Kept for Farming Purposes |
This treaty applies to animals kept for farming purposes. It outlines the keeping, caring for and housing of farm animals on the farm and especially in modern stock farming systems. Freedom of movement is especially important for animals kept in these systems as well as appropriate lighting, ventilation, temperature and environmental conditions |
Treaty | ||
| AL - Dog Bite/Dangerous Animal - Liability of Owners of Dogs Biting or Injuring Persons. | Ala. Code 1975 § 3-1-1 - 6; § 3-6-1 - 4; Ala.Code 1975 § 3-6A-1 - 8; § 3-7A-9 | AL ST § 3-1-1 - 6; AL ST § 3-6-1 - 4; AL ST § 3-7A-9 | These Alabama statutes outline the state's dog bite law. The law first provides that, when any person owns or keeps a vicious or dangerous animal of any kind and, as a result of his or her careless management or allowing the dog to go at liberty, and another person, without fault is injured, such owner shall be liable in damages for such injury. If any dog shall, without provocation, bite or injure any person who is at the time at a place where he or she has a legal right to be, the owner of such dog shall be liable in damages to the person so bitten or injured. This apparent strict liability has a mitigation provision that states that the owner of such dog shall be entitled to plead and prove in mitigation of damages that he had no knowledge of any circumstances indicating such dog to be or to have been vicious or dangerous. If an owner, however, is aware that his or her dog is rabid at the time of the bite, he or she shall be liable for twice the damages sustained. | Statute |