Results
| Title | Citation | Alternate Citation | Agency Citation | Summary | Type |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 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 | |
| U.S. v. Moon Lake Electric Ass'n, Inc. | 45 F.Supp.2d 1070 (D. Colo. 1999) |
Defendant on appeal contends that its conduct of electrocuting migratory birds does not fall within the ambit of either the MBTA or the BGEPA because each statute is directed at the more traditional "physical" takings of migratory birds through hunting and poaching. The court disagrees, finding the plain language of the statute and legislative history demonstrate an intent to include electrocutions. The court further delineates the differences in intent under each statute, finding that while the MBTA is a strict liability crime, the BGEPA is not. For further discussion on the intersection of the MBTA and the BGEPA, see Detailed Discussion of 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 | ||
| China Intro |
Animal Law in China
|
Policy | |||
| Branks v. Kern | 348 S.E.2d 815 (N.C.App.,1986) | 348 S.E.2d 815 (1986) |
In this negligence action, a cat owner brought suit against veterinarian and veterinary clinic after she was bitten by her own cat while the cat was receiving treatment by the veterinarian. At issue, is whether the veterinarian owed a duty to the cat owner to exercise reasonable care in preventing the cat from harming the owner while the cat was being treated. In review of the lower court’s grant of motion for summary judgment, the Court of Appeals held that substantial issues of material fact existed to preclude the grant of summary judgment. However, this was overturned on appeal at the Supreme Court. ( See , Branks v. Kern (On Appeal) 359 S.E.2d 780 (N.C.,1987)). |
Case | |
| Liotta v. Segur | Not Reported in A.2d, 2004 WL 728829 (Conn.Super.), 36 Conn. L. Rptr. 621 (Conn.Super.,2004) |
In this unreported Connecticut case, a dog owner sued a groomer for negligent infliction of emotional distress, alleging that the groomer negligently handled her very large dog when he removed it from her vehicle with “excessive force.” This resulted in a leg fracture, that, after lengthy and expensive care, ultimately resulted in the dog's euthanization. The court held that plaintiff failed to adequately plead a case for negligent infliction of emotional distress, but said in dicta that the results might be different for a pet owner who proves intentional infliction of emotional distress. Motion for summary judgment as against plaintiff's count two is granted. |
Case | ||
| WA - Rabies - 246-100-197. Rabies--Measures to prevent human disease. | WA ADC 246-100-197 | WAC 246-100-197 | Among other provisions concerning rabies, this Washington regulation states that an owner of a dog, cat, or ferret shall have it vaccinated and revaccinated against rabies following veterinary and USDA-licensed rabies vaccine manufacturer instructions. | Administrative | |
| VT - Hunting, contest - § 4716. Coyote-hunting competitions; prohibition | 10 V.S.A. § 4716 | VT ST T. 10 § 4716 | This Vermont law, effective January 1, 2019, prohibits coyote-hunting competitions in the state. A “coyote-hunting competition” means a contest in which people compete in the capturing or taking of coyotes for a prize. Violation incurs a fine of $400 - $1,000 for a first offense. A second or subsequent conviction results in a fine of not more than $4,000.00 nor less than $2,000.00. | Statute |