|
IN - Dog - Consolidated Dog Laws |
These Indiana statutes comprise the state's dog laws. Included are provisions on rabies, liability of owners for dog bites or damage to livestock, and taxation and registration laws, among others. |
|
IN - Cruelty - Consolidated Cruelty Statutes |
These Indiana statutes set forth the anti-cruelty laws. As used in this chapter, "animal" does not include a human being. Among the provisions include anti-neglect, anti-animal fighting, and anti-abuse provisions. A person having a vertebrate animal in the person's custody who recklessly, knowingly, or intentionally abandons or neglects the animal commits cruelty to an animal, a Class A misdemeanor. A person who knowingly or intentionally purchases or possesses an animal for the purpose of using the animal in an animal fighting contest commits a Level 6 felony. A person who knowingly or intentionally abuses a vertebrate animal commits cruelty to an animal, a Class A misdemeanor, which may become a Level 6 felony under described circumstances. |
|
IN - Breeders - Rule 1. Commercial Dog Breeder and Broker Registration |
This set of Indiana rules provides the rules for licensing and registration of commercial dog brokers and breeders. |
|
IN - Breeder - Article 21. Commercial Dog Breeder Regulation |
The laws set forth requirements for commercial breeders in Indiana, defined as a person who maintains more than twenty (20) unaltered female dogs that are at least twelve (12) months of age. These laws do not apply to humane societies, rescue groups, certain service and hunting dog breeders, foster homes, or hobby breeders. A person may not operate a commercial dog breeder or broker operation without first registering with the state. Failure to register is a Class A misdemeanor. The chapter sets forth minimum standards of care and requires that a breeder comply with federal standards of care set forth in 9 CFR 3.1 through 9 CFR 3.12. Enforcement of the chapter will fall to the Indiana state board of animal health, which may seek injunctive relief and impose civil penalties ranging from $500 - $5,000 for violations. |
|
IN - Bite - Indiana Dog Bite Laws |
These Indiana statutes provide the state's dog bite laws. If a dog, without provocation, bites any person who is peaceably conducting himself in any place where he may be required to go for the purpose of discharging any duty imposed upon him by the laws of this state or by the laws or postal regulations of the United States of America, the owner of such dog may be held liable for any damages suffered by the person bitten, regardless of the former viciousness of such dog or the owner's knowledge of such viciousness. It also establishes the conditions under which an owner will be criminally liable if his or her dog bites another person. In Indiana, physicians treating dog bite injuries are required to report such injuries not more than 72-hours after the incident. |
|
IN - Beech Grove - Title IX: General Regulations (Chapter 90: Animals) |
In Beech Grove, Indiana, a dog's ears may only be cropped by a licensed veterinarian and only if a licensed veterinarian signs a certificate stating that the operation is necessary for the dog's health or comfort. Any person convicted of violating this provision shall have his or her permit to own a dog revoked and shall not be issued a new permit for a period of 1 year. This person shall also be fined anywhere between $10 and $200
|
|
IN - Assistance Animal - Assistance Animal/Guide Dog Laws |
These statutes comprise Indiana's assistance animal/guide dog laws. |
|
IN - Rehabilitation, wildlife - 312 IAC 9-10-9 Wild animal rehabilitation permit |
This Indiana regulation sets for the requirements to obtain a permit to possess wild animals for rehabilitation. |
|
Hendricks v. Barlow |
Landowners were held in violation of a zoning regulation, established under a Hendricks County ordinance, which forbade having wild animals residing on residential property.
The trial court held that the county could not pass such a law, since it would be preempted by state and federal law.
However, on appeal, this Court found that federal (the AWA) and state law did not preempt the County from passing such ordinances.
The trial court erroneously attempted to interpret the law when it was not ambiguous, and, thus, preemption
by state and federal law should not have been found.
Thus, the zoning regulation was permitted.
|
|
Hardsaw v. Courtney |
In this Indiana case, the Hardsaws appeal a jury verdict in favor of the Courtneys stemming from their complaint for damages against the Hardsaws after their daughter Kimberly was attacked and bitten by the Hardsaws' dog who was under the supervision of the Hardsaw's 12-year-old daughter at the time of the attack. The Courtneys alleged negligent entrustment. On appeal, the Hardaws argue that, as a matter of law, absent evidence of prior viciousness, they could not have been negligent in entrusting Buster to their daughter and, thus, that this case should not have been submitted to the jury. The court found that the question of whether owner's entrustment of the control and restraint of a dog to a child was reasonable under the circumstances is a question for the jury. Here, the dog was restrained in the yard by a chain, but he was left under the care and supervision of a twelve-year-old child who had no previous experience supervising him. The judgment was affirmed.
|
