|
AR - Sherwood - Breed - Pit Bull Ordinance No. 1776 |
In Sherwood, Arkansas, it is unlawful to keep, harbor, own or possess any pit bull dog, with the exception for those who are registered and reside in an area that is annexed into corporate city limits. However, if a pit bull is aggressive towards people or other dogs, the dog is not exempt from the ban. Registration requirements include: annual vaccinations, license, microchips, photo ID, insurance, proper confinement, 'Beware of Dog' signs, and mandatory disclosures. Any dog found to be the subject of a violation shall be subject to immediate seizure and impoundment or may be euthanized. The owner may be fined up to $1,000 and imprisoned for up to 30 days.
|
|
AR - Trusts - Trust for care of animal. |
This statute represents Arkansas' pet trust law. The law provides that 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. |
|
AR - Veterinary - Veterinary Practice Code |
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. |
|
Ash v. State |
Police raided defendant's home and found an area converted into an arena for dog fighting. Defendant was found guilty of promoting or engaging in dog fighting or possessing a dog for that purpose. On appeal, the court found that the based on the evidence a jury could have reasonably concluded that defendant was aware that on property owned by her and her husband an arena had been built for the purpose of clandestine dog fighting and that she was aware it was so being used.
|
|
Boyle Ventures, LLC v. City of Fayetteville |
This case involved a constitutional challenge to a Fayetteville ordinance that would have prohibited pet stores from selling dogs and cats unless obtained from approved shelters or rescues. The plaintiff pet store operator argued the ordinance violated both the Arkansas Retail Pet Store Consumer Protection Act and Working Animal Protection Act, constituting an unconstitutional municipal law contrary to state law. The Arkansas Supreme Court held the case was moot since the ordinance was repealed before taking effect, but clarified in dicta that the city's authority to prevent animal cruelty under Ark. Code Ann. § 14-54-103 does not extend to passing ordinances that conflict with state laws protecting lawful animal enterprises. The court reversed the circuit court's finding that the ordinance violated state law and remanded with instructions to dismiss, while dismissing the direct appeal as moot. Chief Justice Baker concurred in the result but diverged from the mootness rationale, arguing the ordinance did not conflict with the Arkansas Retail Pet Store Act or Working Animal Protection Act under a proper statutory interpretation. She contended the circuit court erred in its statutory analysis, making Boyle’s ACRA claim fail as a matter of law without reaching immunity or damages. Justice Womack dissented, asserting the circuit court erred by not first addressing the jurisdictional issue of the City’s statutory immunity under Ark. Code Ann. § 21-9-301. Justice Womack criticized the majority for conflating statutory immunity with federal qualified immunity and urged remand for a factual determination on whether the City had liability insurance, which would nullify immunity. The dissent viewed the merits discussion as advisory absent this threshold ruling.
|
|
Detailed Discussion of Arkansas Great Ape Laws |
In Arkansas, gorillas, chimpanzees, bonobos, orangutans, and gibbons are protected because of their status as “endangered species” under state law. The Arkansas Game and Fish Commission (GFC) prohibits the importation, transportation, sale, purchase, and possession of endangered species unless the animals were legally acquired and are held under a permit.The following discussion begins with a general overview of the various state statutes and regulations affecting Great Apes. It then analyzes the applicability of those laws to the possession and use of apes for specific purposes, including their possession as pets, for scientific research, for commercial purposes, and in sanctuaries. |
|
Elliot v. Hurst |
This tort case involves appellee's suit against appellant for appellant's conversion of appellee's wolf hybrid dog named Rambo. The appellee in this case had placed an ad stating that he had a certain breed of dogs for sale. When appellant went to see the dogs, she noticed a serious leg infection. After consulting with the local prosecutor’s office and an animal organization, she returned to the owner’s home to take the dog in for treatment. The consulting veterinarian determined that the leg had to be amputated. The court held that the recovery was limited to the market value at the time prior to the amputation.
|
|
Free v. Jordan |
In a replevin action to recover possession of a lost dog from its finder, the court reversed and remanded the case so a jury could determine whether the statute of limitations was tolled due to the defendant's alleged fraudulent concealment of his possession of the dog.
|
|
Grise v. State |
The Defendant was charged under the Arkansas cruelty to animal statute for the killing of a hog that had tresspass into his field. The Defendant was found guilty and appealed. The Supreme Court found that the lower court commited error by instructing the jury that all killing is needless. The Court reveresed the judgment and remanded it for further consideration.
|
|
JONES v. ST. LOUIS, I. M. & S. RY. CO. |
This involved an action by R. D. Jones against the St. Louis, Iron Mountain & Southern Railway Company, claiming $2,000 damages,--$1,000 for the value of a colt killed by defendant's train, and $1,000 damages for not posting notice of the killing as required by the statute. The court looked at areas in the market outside of the locality since local information on the colt’s market value was not available. The court affirmed the lower court's judgment due to a lack in plaintiff's proofs at trial.
|
