Results
| Title | Citation | Alternate Citation | Summary | Type |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| World Law |
The Animal Legal & Historical Center houses laws, cases, and scholarly discussions on animal law topics from across the globe. See the different ways to access materials from different countries and regions below. |
Policy | ||
| Barney v. Pinkham | 45 N.W. 694 (Neb. 1890) | 29 Neb. 350 (Neb. 1890) |
Plaintiff was was the owner of a certain roan mare of the value of $200; that, on or about the 21st day of April, 1888, the said mare became and was sick with some disease then unknown to plaintiff in kind and character; that, at said date last aforesaid, and long prior thereto, the defendant claimed to be, and advertised and held himself out to the public to be, a veterinary surgeon, and asked to be employed as such in the treatment of sick and diseased horses. The court held that a veterinary surgeon, in the absence of a special contract, engages to use such reasonable skill, diligence, and attention as may be ordinarily expected of persons in that profession. He does not undertake to use the highest degree of skill, nor an extraordinary amount of diligence. In other words, the care and diligence required are such as a careful and trustworthy man would be expected to exercise. The case was remanded for determination of further proofs. |
Case |
| NC - Hotels - § 72-7.1. Admittance of pets to hotel rooms | N.C.G.S.A. § 72-7.1 | N.C.G.S.A. § 72-7.1, NC ST § 72-7.1 | This North Carolina laws states that innkeepers may permit pets in rooms used for sleeping purposes and in adjoining rooms. Persons bringing pets into a room in which they are not permitted are in violation of this section and punishable according to subsection (d). All sleeping rooms in which the innkeeper permits pets must contain a sign posted in a prominent place in the room stating that pets are permitted in the room. | Statute |
| State ex rel. Griffin v. Thirteen Horses | Not Reported in A.2d, 2006 WL 1828459 (Conn.Super.) |
Defendant's horses were seized on December 14, 2005 pursuant to a search and seizure warrant signed by the court. The warrant was sought, in part, on affidavits that alleged possible violations of the Cruelty to Animals statutory provisions. Defendant Rowley filed the instant motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction arguing that the court lacks jurisdiction because the state has failed to comply with the provisions of § 22-329a and because the search and seizure warrant is invalid. Specifically, defendant maintains that the phrase in subsection (a) authorizing the chief animal control officer to "lawfully take charge of any animal found neglected or cruelly treated" merely allows the officer to enter the owner's property to care for the animal, but does not authorize seizure of the animal without a prior judicial determination. This court rejected Rowley's interpretation of the phrase "lawfully take charge." The court found that, as a practical matter, it is inconceivable that animal control officers, having found animals that are neglected or cruelly treated, would then leave them at the property. |
Case | |
| State v. Chilinski | 330 P.3d 1169 (Mont. 2014) | 2014 MT 206, 2014 WL 3842953 (Mont. 2014) | After a call reporting the poor health of over 100 dogs at a large Malamute breeding operation and the recruitment of the Humane Society of the United States, including several volunteers, to help execute a warrant, defendant was charged with one misdemeanor count of cruelty to animals and 91 counts of felony cruelty to animals pursuant to § 45–8–211, MCA. Defendant was convicted by a jury of 91 counts of animal cruelty and sentenced to the Department of Corrections for a total of 30 years with 25 years suspended. A prohibition from possessing any animals while on probation was also imposed on the defendant, as well as an order to forfeit every seized dog and all puppies born after the execution of the warrant. On appeal to the Supreme Court of Montana, defendant argued the District Court erred in denying his motion to suppress the evidence obtained from the search on Fourth Amendment grounds. The Supreme Court held, however, that the search warrant authorizing seizure of “any and all dogs” and “any and all records pertaining to dogs” was not impermissibly overbroad; that the participation by civilian volunteers and Humane Society personnel in execution the warrant was not prohibited by the Fourth Amendment or the Montana Constitution; and that the use of civilian volunteers to assist in execution of search did not violate defendant's right to privacy. The Supreme Court therefore held that the lower court did not err in denying the motion to suppress the evidence. Next, the defendant argued that the District Court abused its discretion when it improperly determined that the results of an investigation of his kennels in 2009 were irrelevant pursuant to M.R. Evid. 403. The court, however, agreed with the District Court, despite defendant's claim that 2009 inspection would show that the poor conditions of the kennels and the dogs in 2011 were justified due to economic hardship and health issues. Finally, defendant argued that the District Court was not authorized to order forfeiture of the defendant’s dogs that were not identified as victims of animal cruelty. The Supreme Court, however, held that the statute authorizing forfeiture of “any animal affected” as part of sentence for animal cruelty did not limit forfeiture of defendant's dogs to only those that served as basis for underlying charges, nor did it implicate the defendant's right to jury trial under the Apprendi case. The Supreme Court therefore held that the District Court did not abuse its discretion in requiring the defendant to forfeit all of his dogs. The lower court’s decision was affirmed. | Case |
| AL - Ordinances - Article 4. General Police Powers | Ala. Code 1975 § 11-47-110, 117, 118 | AL ST § 11-47-110, 117, 118 | This set of statutes authorizes all cities and towns to enact local ordinances to prevent dangerous, unwholesome, or offensive conditions and to abate public nuisances. | Statute |
| WA - Selah - Breed - 5.07.080 Pit bull dogs prohibited. | SELAH, WA., MUNICIPAL CODE § 5.01.125, 5.01.127, 5.01.40, 5.01.50, 5.07.080 - 5.07.127 (2004) |
In Selah, Washington, it is unlawful to keep, harbor, own, or possess a pit bull dog, with an exception for pit bulls licensed prior to the ordinance. Such dogs are subject to certain requirements regarding confinement, use of an orange collar, leash and muzzle, the posting of"Beware of Dog" signs, and the maintenance of liability insurance. Such dogs must be vaccinated against rabies and be photographed and micro-chipped for identification purposes. An owner who fails to comply may have his pit bull dog confiscated and impounded. Violations of r constitute a gross misdemeanor, punishable by a fine of up to $5,000 and/or imprisonment of up to one year. |
Local Ordinance | |
| IN - Cattle Slaughter - TAMIL NADU ANIMAL PRESERVATION ACT, 1958 | 10 of 1958 | The law, specific to the South Indian state of Tamil Nadu, prohibits the slaughter of bulls, bullocks, cows, calves, male and female buffaloes and buffalo calves without a certificate from the competent authority. The certificate shall be granted if the animal is over ten years old and is unfit for work or breeding, or if it has been permanently incapacitated for work. The Act also criminalizes injuring an animal in order to make it fit for slaughter. | Statute | |
| Veterinary Surgeons Investigating Committee v. Lloyd | 2002 WL 31928523, 134 A Crim R 441 | 2002 NSWADT 284 |
Appeal of agency determination of veterinarian malpractice for failure to detect ring worms in a cat. Long case with full discussion of process of administrative hearing and the standards by which to decide if an action is malpractice. |
Case |
| England - Puppy and Kitten Sales - The Animal Welfare (Licensing of Activities Involving Animals) (England) (Amendment) Regulations 2019 | 2019 No. 1093 | Comes into force 6 April 2020: Known as 'Lucy's Law.' These amendments to the licensing Regulations prevent the sale of puppies and kittens by third party sellers - such as a pet shop or commercial dealer - unless they have bred the animal themselves. Anyone looking to buy or adopt a puppy or kitten under 6 months old must deal directly with the breeder or animal re homing center. | Statute |