Results
| Title | Citation | Alternate Citation | Summary | Type |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| AK - Zoo - § 09.65.180. Civil liability of zoos | AS § 09.65.180 | AK ST § 09.65.180 | The Alaska law provides that, except as provided in (b), a person who owns or operates a zoo is strictly liable for injury to a person or property if the injury is caused by an animal owned by or in the custody of the zoo. | Statute |
| In re Estate of Howard Brand, Late of Essex Junction, Vermont |
This Vermont case considers the effectiveness of a clause in a testator’s will that directs his executor to destroy any animals that he owns at the time of his death. The testator, Howard Brand, was believed to have owned four horses and one mule at the time of his death. An unincorporated association entitled, “The Coalition to Save Brand’s Horses” was formed in response to this unusual post-mortem request, and sought to intervene in the lawsuit. In a clear case of first impression in Vermont, the Chittenden County Court held that the clause as set forth in Brand’s last codicil mandating the destruction of his animals is void as contrary to public policy. |
Pleading | ||
| U.S. v. Santillan | 243 F.3d 1125 (9th Cir. 2001) |
Santillan was prosecuted under the Lacey Act for bringing ten baby parrots across the border from Tijuana. His appeal raises, among other issues, a significant question about the mens rea needed under the Lacey Act. The court held that the Lacey Act does not require knowledge of the particular law violated by the possession or predicate act, as long as the defendant knows of its unlawfulness. |
Case | |
| Drinkhouse v. Van Ness | 260 P. 869 (1935) | 202 Cal. 359 (1935) |
Plaintiffs sued defendants to recover value of a horse that was wrongfully taken from them. The Court held that evidence was admissible to establish the value of the horse at the time of the wrongful taking to fix the damages amount. The peculiar value of the horse as a sire was established by evidence as to the horse’s racing history and to its progeny’s character and racing ability. Owners were entitled to recover damages for the reasonable value of the horse’s use during the period they were wrongfully deprived of it. |
Case |
| IN - Cattle Slaughter - JHARKHAND BOVINE ANIMAL PROHIBITION OF SLAUGHTER ACT, 2005 | 11 of 2005 | The Act, specific to the state of Jharkhand, prohibits the slaughter of bovine animals including cows, calves, heifers, bulls and bullocks. Persons may not transport bovine animals from the state to other states for slaughter, or export any bovine animals for slaughter. Persons may not sell, purchase or possess the flesh of bovine animals. The Act provides for the setting up of institutions for the maintenance and care of uneconomic cows by the government or local authorities. Violations of the Act would lead to imprisonment and fines. | Statute | |
| 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 |
| Canada - Manitoba Statutes. The Animal Liability Act | S.M. 1998, c. 8 [C.C.S.M., c. A95], as am. S.M. 2002, c. 24, s. 4; 2002, c. | This set of laws comprises the Manitoba Animal Liability Act. Under the Act, the owner of an animal is liable for damages resulting from harm that the animal causes to a person or to property, but the damages awarded can be reduced depending upon the contributory fault or negligence of the plaintiff. In addition, no animal may run at-large under this law. Any person who finds a dog,wild boar, or prescribed animal worrying, injuring or killing livestock on the premises of the owner or possessor of the livestock that person may destroy the dog, wild boar or prescribed animal. | Statute | |
| NJ - Stone Harbor - Chapter 147: Animals (Article V: Feral Cats) | Borough of Stone Harbor, New Jersey Code of Ordinances, Article V: Feral Cats, Secs. 147-24 to 147-32 |
This Borough of Stone Harbor feral cat ordinance sets up a Trap, Neuter and Return (TNR) program outside of the area between 111th Street and the southern end of the Borough, as well as outside of the entire Bird Sanctuary and Stone Harbor Point areas. Under this ordinance, any feral cats found within the area between 111th Street and the southern end of the Borough, the Bird Sanctuary, or the Stone Point area must be captured and transported to the County Animal Shelter for handling in accordance with the interlocal agreement between the Borough and the county applicable to such animals. Caregivers, who are uncompensated volunteers, serve to facilitate the TNR program and their duties, as well as potential penalties for not complying with their duties, are indicated within this ordinance.
|
Local Ordinance | |
| Dias v. City and County of Denver | 567 F.3d 1169 (C.A.10 (Colo.),2009) | 2009 WL 1490359 (C.A.10 (Colo.)) |
The Tenth Circuit took up a challenge to Denver's breed-specific ban against pitbull dogs. The plaintiffs, former residents of Denver, contended the ban is unconstitutionally vague on its face and deprives them of substantive due process. The district court dismissed both claims under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) before plaintiffs presented evidence to support their claims. On appeal, the plaintiffs argue that the district court erred by prematurely dismissing the case at the 12(b)(6) stage. The Tenth Circuit agreed in part, finding that while the plaintiffs lack standing to seek prospective relief for either claim because they have not shown a credible threat of future prosecution, taking the factual allegations in the complaint as true the plaintiffs have plausibly alleged that the pit bull ban is not rationally related to a legitimate government interest. |
Case |