Results
| Title | Citation | Alternate Citation | Summary | Type |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Canada - Federal Cruelty to Animals | Canada R.S.C. 1985, c. C46 | This section of the criminal code is the national anti-cruelty law for Canada. | Statute | |
| Fund for Animals v. Kempthorne | 538 F.3d 124 (C.A.2 (N.Y.),2008) | 2008 WL 3542887 |
The Fund for Animals and others brought an action challenging public resource depredation order (PRDO) issued by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service concerning a species of migratory bird known as the double-crested cormorant. On appeal, the Second Circuit affirmed the grant of summary judgment, finding that the depredation order did not violate MBTA because the Order restricts the species, locations, and means by which takings could occur, thereby restricting the discretion exercised by third parties acting under the Order. Further, the depredation order did not conflict with international treaties (specifically the Mexico Convention) because the Treaty only mandates a close season only for game birds, which the parties agree do not include cormorants. Finally, the agency's adoption of the order was not arbitrary and capricious and complied with National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). |
Case |
| U.S. v. Oliver | 255 F.3d 588 (8th Cir. 2001) |
Despite delays in receiving eagle parts through the federal permit process, the court rules the BGEPA does not violate the Religious Freedom Restoration Act. There is nothing so peculiar about defendant's situation to allow a one-man exception. For further discussion on religious challenges to the BGEPA by Native Americans, see Detailed Discussion of Eagle Act . |
Case | |
| AZ - Microchip - 44-8021. Dog or cat possession; microchip scan; owner notification; definition | A. R. S. § 44-8021 | AZ ST § 44-8021 | This Arizona law from 2022 requires an animal shelter to thoroughly scan for the presence of a microchip in the dog or cat and make a reasonable effort to contact the owner after taking possession of a dog or cat. | Statute |
| Brown by Brown v. Southside Animal Shelter, Inc. | 158 N.E.3d 401 (Ind. Ct. App. 2020), adhered to on reh'g sub nom. Brown v. Southside Animal Shelter, Inc., 162 N.E.3d 1121 (Ind. Ct. App. 2021) | 158 N.E.3d 401 (Ind.App., 2020) | This case from Indiana explores whether an animal shelter had a duty to inform a dog adopter of a dog's vicious propensities. Plaintiffs (the Browns) appeal the trial court's grant of summary judgment in favor of Southside Animal Shelter, Inc. (“Southside”). The case stems from the adoption of a dog from defendant animal shelter. In 2014, the dog was surrendered by its owner to a neighboring animal shelter because it did not get along with another dog. The dog was then adopted to another party where it attacked the family's two-year-old boy, causing significant injuries. The dog was then surrendered to the county animal shelter, who recorded the bite incident upon intake of the dog. After the mandated quarantine, the dog was eventually transferred to defendant animal shelter who was informed of the bite according to deposition testimony. However, during an 8-day aggression observation, the dog showed no signs of aggression. In late 2015, plaintiffs adopted the dog with a release that stated the history of the dog was unknown and the shelter was released from all liability resulting from illness or actions by the dog. Less than a month later, the dog attacked the Brown's six-year-old daughter causing injuries to her face. In the trial court action by the Browns against Southside, the court granted the defendant's motion of summary judgment based on the adoption release and dismissed the case. In this instant appeal before the Indiana Court of Appeals, the court focused on whether Southside owed a duty to the Browns to establish liability for the dog bite. The court found factual disputes remain as to whether Southside knew or should have known of the dog's past aggression and whether the knowledge from the volunteer who did intake for the dog imputed knowledge to the animal shelter. Additionally, the court indicated there was a question of fact whether Southside exercised reasonable care in evaluating the dog's behavioral history prior to adoption. Ultimately, the Court found that Southside had a duty to the Browns to inform them of the dog's past bite history, and factual issues relating to that duty preclude the granting of summary judgment. The case was reversed and remanded for further proceedings. | Case |
| Let the Animals Live Assiciation;et al. v. Israel Institute of Technology et al. | No. 54789-12-11 (English version) | After pressures from multiple animal rights organizations, an Israeli airline stopped flying monkeys to Israeli research institutions. Multiple Israeli research institutions then filed suit, asking the court to present the airline with a permanent order to fly animals as per their requests, including monkeys, for bio-medical research purposes. In the present case, the question to be decided was whether to allow several animal protection organizations to be added to the claim (whether the airline was bound to fly animals for experiments or not) as defendants or as amicus curiae. The court held that the animal protection organizations should be allowed to join the proceedings as defendants because they could bring before the court a more complete picture of the issue before it was decided; they filed their request at a very early stage; and they spoke and acted for the animals in the face of a verdict that might directly affect the legal rights of the animals. | Case | |
| Protocol on Animal Welfare Under Amsterdam Treaty |
Short Section added to the treaty which created the European Union, the Amsterdam Treaty, which acknowledges animal welfare as a factor when creating policy positions. |
Treaty | ||
| AL - Trust - § 19-3B-408. Trust for care of animal | Ala. Code 1975 § 19-3B-110; Ala. Code 1975 § 19-3B-408 | AL ST § 19-3B-110; AL ST § 19-3B-408 | Alabama's pet trust law was enacted in 2006. A trust may be created to provide for the care of an animal alive during the settlor's lifetime. The trust terminates upon the death of the animal or, if the trust was created to provide for the care of more than one animal alive during the settlor's lifetime, upon the death of the last surviving animal. | Statute |
| Animal Law Index Volume 10 |
|
Policy | ||
| People v. Speegle | 62 Cal.Rptr.2d 384 (Cal.App.3.Dist. 1997) | 53 Cal.App.4th 1405, 97 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 2468, 97 Daily Journal D.A.R. 4286 (1997) |
The prosecution initially charged defendant with 27 counts of felony animal cruelty (Pen. Code, § 597, subd. (b)) and 228 counts of misdemeanor animal neglect (Pen. Code, § 597f, subd. (a)). Ultimately, the jury convicted her of eight counts of felony animal cruelty, making the specific finding that she subjected the animals to unnecessary suffering (Pen. Code, § 599b), and one count of misdemeanor animal neglect. Following a hearing, the court ordered her to reimburse the costs of impounding her animals in the amount of $265,000. The Court of Appeal reversed the misdemeanor conviction for instructional error and otherwise affirmed. The court held that the prohibitions against depriving an animal of “necessary” sustenance, drink, or shelter; subjecting an animal to “needless suffering”; or failing to provide an animal with “proper” food or drink (Pen. Code, § 597, subd. (b)) are not unconstitutionally vague. The court also held that the confiscation of defendant's animals for treatment and placement, and the filing of a criminal complaint afterward, did not amount to an effort to punish her twice for the same conduct in violation of double jeopardy principles. |
Case |