Results
| Title | Citation | Alternate Citation | Agency 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 | |||
| PA - Equine - Chapter 13. Equine Activity. | 4 P.S. § 601 - 607 | PA ST 4 P.S. § 601 - 607 | These statutes comprise Pennsylvania's Equine Activity Act, which sent into effect on February 21, 2006. Under the law, liability for negligence shall only be barred where knowing voluntary assumption of risk is proven in a particular case. However, the Act provides immunity only where a sign that states, "You assume the risk of equine activities pursuant to Pennsylvania law," is conspicuously posted on the premises in two or more locations. | Statute | |
| Suica - Habeas Corpus | Official Diary for October 4th 2005 |
First case to consider that a chimpanzee might be a legal person to come before the court under a petition for Habeas Corpus. |
Case | ||
| Oregon Game Fowl Breeders Ass'n v. Smith | 516 P.2d 499 (Or. 1973) |
This is an appeal of an action by a fowl breeder's association to declare Oregon laws against cockfighting unconstitutional. Game fowl breeders brought an action against a district attorney and State Attorney General seeking judgment that statutes prohibiting cruelty to animals were unconstitutional and seeking an injunction against enforcement of statutes against breeders for cockfighting. The Court of Appeals held that the practice of breeding birds suitable for cockfighting did not qualify as 'good livestock husbandry' and that cockfighting was prohibited by statute. |
Case | ||
| UT - Impound - Chapter 46. Animal Welfare Act. Part 1. General Provisions | U.C.A. 1953 § 11-46-101 - 104 | UT ST § 11-46-101 - 104 | Under this act, animal control officers must hold stray animals in safe and humane custody for a minimum of 5 business days prior to making any final disposition of the animal. A stray animal may be euthanized prior to the completion of the 5-day period to prevent unnecessary suffering due to serious injury or disease. | Statute | |
| NY - Fur - Chapter 20. Of the Consolidated Laws. | McKinney's General Business Law § 399-aaa | NY GEN BUS § 399-aaa | Makes it illegal for any person, firm, partnership or corporation to knowingly import, sell at retail or manufacture clothing with fur which is not properly labeled as containing "faux fur" or "real fur." Defines appropriate labeling by adding the appropriate description to the permanent tag attached to the clothing, a temporary tag to identify the clothing, or by affixing a sticker with the description in a conspicuous place on the clothing. Sets the maximum punishment to not exceed a $500 fine for the first violation and not to exceed $1000 for each subsequent violation. | Statute | |
| 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 | |||
| State v. Nelson | 219 P.3d 100 (Wash.App. Div. 3, 2009) | 2009 WL 3297806 (Wash.App. Div. 3), 152 Wash.App. 755 (2009) |
Defendants in this Washington case appeal their convictions of animal fighting and operating an unlicensed private kennel. They contend on appeal that the trial judge abused her discretion by allowing an expert from the Humane Society to render an opinion on whether the evidence showed that the defendants intended to engage in dogfighting exhibitions. The Court of Appeals held that the judge did not abuse her discretion in admitting the expert's opinion. The opinions offered by the expert were based on the evidence and the expert's years of experience. The court found that the expert's opinion was a fair summary and reflected the significance of the other evidence offered by the prosecution. Further, the expert's opinion was proffered to rebut defendants' contention that the circumstantial evidence (the veterinary drugs, training equipment, tattoos, etc.) showed only defendants' intent to enter the dogs in legal weight-pulling contests. Defendants convictions for animal fighting and operating an unlicensed private kennel were affirmed. |
Case | |
| Hastings v. Sauve | 989 N.E.2d 940 (N.Y., 2013) | 2013 N.Y. Slip Op. 03120, 2013 WL 1829834, 21 N.Y.3d 122 (2013) |
After plaintiff motorist was injured after hitting a cow that had wandered onto the highway, she sued farm owner, operator of cattle-shipping business, and operator's assistant, alleging that defendants were negligent in not properly confining cow to its pasture. There was no evidence that cow had a vicious or abnormal propensity, or that cow's owner knew of propensity, as required to support a strict liability claim. However, on appeal to the Court of Appeals, the court held that a landowner or the owner of an animal may be liable under ordinary tort-law principles when a farm animal is negligently allowed to stray from the property on which the animal is kept.
|
Case | |
| US - AWA - Subpart A. Specifications for the Humane Handling, Care, Treatment, and Transportation of Dogs and Cats | 9 C.F.R. § 3.1 - 3.20 | This set of regulations contain the humane care provisions for dogs and cats under the Animal Welfare Act. | Administrative |
