Results
| Title | Citation | Alternate Citation | Summary | Type |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| OK - Veterinary - Chapter 15. Oklahoma Veterinary Practice Act. | 59 Okl. St. Ann. § 698.1 - 33 | These are the state's veterinary practice laws. Among the provisions include licensing requirements, laws concerning the state veterinary board, veterinary records laws, and the laws governing disciplinary actions for impaired or incompetent practitioners. | Statute | |
| Cross v. State | 646 S.W.2d 514 (Tex. App. 1982). |
"Necessary food" in the animal cruelty statute means food sufficient in both quantity and quality to sustain the animal in question. |
Case | |
| MN - Hunting - Chapter 97A. Game and Fish. General Provisions. | M. S. A. § 97A.105 | MN ST § 97A.105 | In Minnesota, there are license requirements for breeding fur-bearing animals, game birds, bear, and mute swans. Fox and mink may not be bought or sold for breeding unless they have been pen-bred for at least two generations. Live beaver may not be transported without a permit. A violation may result in all animals being confiscated. It is not necessary to have a license to purchase live game birds or their eggs if the birds are released, consumed, or processed within one year. | Statute |
| Houseman v. Dare | 966 A.2d 24 (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 2009) | 405 N.J.Super. 538 (2009) |
An engaged, live-in couple purchased a dog together and listed both of their names on the American Kennel Club registration. While speaking to his girlfriend about ending the relationship, the boyfriend promised her that she could keep the dog, but failed to fulfill that promise; the court required specific enforcement of that promise. In addition, the court found that dogs possess special subjective value similar to "heirlooms, family treasures, and works of art." |
Case |
| TX - Assault, sexual of animal - § 21.09. Bestiality | V. T. C. A., Penal Code § 21.09 | TX PENAL § 21.09 | This law represents Texas' prohibition on bestiality, which was enacted in 2017. A person commits this offense if he or she engages in listed contact with an animal. Additionally, a person violates this law if he or she: possesses or provides an animal for such purpose; organizes, promotes or participates in such conduct; permits such conduct at premises under his or her control; engages in conduct listed described in the presence of a child younger than 18 years of age; or advertises, offers, or accepts the offer of an animal with the intent that the animal be used in this state for conduct described. Violation is a state jail felony unless the conduct is done in the presence of a child younger than 18 or the conduct results in serious bodily injury or death of the animal; the offense is a felony of the second degree in those cases. | Statute |
| Bowden v. Monroe County Commission | 800 S.E.2d 252 (W. Va. May 18, 2017) | 239 W. Va. 214, 2017 WL 2224052 (W. Va. May 18, 2017) | The Plaintiff, as administratrix of the estate of her late husband, filed a complaint after he was attacked and killed by American Pit Bull Terriers while taking a walk near his home. The Plaintiff filed against the Defendants, Monroe County, the County Dog Warden Ms. Green, and other defendants, alleging, negligence in performing their statutory duties by allowing vicious dogs to remain at large, and wrongful death. The Plaintiff also sought punitive damages. The Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the complaint and asserted a defense based upon the public duty doctrine. The Circuit Court, Monroe County, granted summary judgment in favor of the Defendants. The Plaintiff appealed. The Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia reversed the Circuit Court and remanded. The Supreme Court held that genuine issues of material fact existed for determining whether a special relationship existed between the county and the victim such as whether: (1) the dog warden assumed an affirmative duty to act on the victim's behalf, (2) the dog warden was aware that inaction could lead to harm, (3) the dog warden had direct contact with the victim's wife regarding vicious nature of dogs; and (4) the victim's wife justifiably relied on assurances from dog warden. | Case |
| NJ - Cruelty - Consolidated Cruelty Statutes | NJSA 4:22-10 to 4:22-61; NJSA 2C:33-31 - 32 | NJ ST 4:22-10 to 4:22-61; 2C:33-31 - 32 | These New Jersey statutes comprise the state's anti-cruelty provisions. According to the definitional section, "animal" or "creature" includes the whole brute creation. Exclusions under the act include state regulated scientific experiments, state sanctioned killing of animals, hunting of game, training of dogs, normal livestock operations, and the killing of rats and mice. With regard to livestock practices, no person may be cited or arrested for a first offense involving a minor or incidental violation of any provision of this title involving alleged cruelty to domestic livestock unless that person has first been issued a written warning. | Statute |
| Cat Champion Corp. v. Jean Marie Primrose | 149 P.3d 1276 (Or. Ct. App. 2006) | 210 Or.App. 206 (2006) |
A woman had 11 cats which were in a state of neglect and were taken away from her and put with a cat protection agency. Criminal charges were dropped against the woman when it was found she was mentally ill and incapable of taking care of herself or her cats. The court found it could grant the cat protection agency ownership over the cats so they could be put up for adoption, even though the woman had not been criminal charged, and had not forfeited her cats. |
Case |
| US - Migratory Bird - Migratory Bird Treaty Act | 16 USC 703 - 712 | This law implements the treaties that the US has signed with a number of countries protecting birds that migrate across our national borders. It makes illegal the taking, possessing or selling of protected species. | Statute | |
| Koivisto v. Davis | 745 N.W.2d 824 (Mich.App., 2008) | 2008 WL 81559 (Mich.App.), 277 Mich.App. 492 (2008) |
Defendants, the Macaks, owned two dogs being boarded at Chieftan Kennels. Plaintiff was outside on her deck when the dogs entered her property and attacked her cats, one of which died later from its injuries. The plaintiff rushed to defend the cats and suffered multiple bites from the dogs. The trial court held that the plaintiff had “provoked” the dogs. The Court of Appeals reversed. “The dogs were already provoked and, in fact, were in a state of attack, for whatever reason when plaintiff responded to their behaviors while on her own property.” |
Case |