|
NJ - Borough of Magnolia - Title 6 - ANIMALS (CHAPTER 95. - ANIMALS) |
In Borough of Magnolia, New Jersey, any person desiring to operate a pet shop or kennel must obtain a license and must operate the establishment within the borough's business district. Thus, this ordinance contains provisions on applying for, renewing, and revoking a license. This ordinance also establishes animal care standards for pet shops and kennels, as well as requires that all dogs kept or maintained within these establishments wear a tag. Additionally, this ordinance also prohibits dogs kept in a kennel or a pet shop from going off the site’s premises except under certain circumstances. Anyone convicted of violating these provisions may be subject to a fine not exceeding $1,000, a term of imprisonment not exceeding 90 days, a period of community service not exceeding 90 days, or any combination thereof.
|
|
NJ - Assistance Animals - Assistance Animal/Guide Dog Laws |
The following statutes comprise the state's relevant assistance animal and guide dog laws. |
|
NH - Housing, pets - Chapter 161-F. Elderly and Adult Services. Companion Animals |
This New Hampshire chapter relates to the keeping of pets in housing for the elderly. Under the chapter, "animals” means common domesticated household animals limited to: dogs, cats, caged birds, and aquarium fish. Tenants of any housing for the elderly project can petition to keep companion animals. The petition is determined by a simple majority vote of 10 percent of all tenants. Other provisions include the establishment of a reasonable damage deposit and a responsibility by the tenant to provide management with an agreement that allows someone else to act as a temporary or permanent caretaker if he or she becomes unable to do so. |
|
New Jersey Society for Prevention of Cruelty to Animals v. Board of Education |
In this action, the New Jersey Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, sought recovery against the Board of Education of the City of East Orange of penalties of the rate of $100 per alleged violation arising out of cancer-inducing experiments conducted by a student in its high school upon live chickens. By permission of the court, defendants, New Jersey Science Teachers’ Association and National Society for Medical Research Inc. were permitted by the court to participate as amicus curiae. The court found that because the board did not obtain authorization from the health department, an authorization which the health department did not think was needed, it was not thereby barred from performing living animal experimentation. The court concluded that the experiment at issue was not per se needless or unnecessary, and that such experiment did not fall within the ban of N.J. Stat. Ann. § 4:22-26 against needless mutilation, killing, or the infliction of unnecessary cruelty.
|
|
New Jersey Soc. for Prevention of Cruelty to Animals v. New Jersey Dept. of Agriculture |
The issue in the case was whether the regulations promulgated by the NJDA pursuant to this authority were invalid for failing to comply with the “humane” standards requirement. Although the court held that the regulations in their entirety were not invalid, the court found that NJDA acted arbitrarily and capriciously in enacting its regulations by allowing all “routine husbandry practices,” as there was no evidence that those practices were “humane.” The court further rejected NJDA regulations allowing cattle tail docking, finding no evidence to support that the practices were “humane.” Finally, the court rejected the assertion of NJDA that certain controversial farm practices, such as castration, de-beaking, and toe-trimming, are “humane” if they are performed by a “knowledgeable individual” “in a way to minimize pain.”
|
|
New Jersey Soc. for Prevention of Cruelty to Animals v. New Jersey Dept. of Agriculture |
This New Jersey case concerns several challenges to the adoption of livestock regulations by the state Department of Agriculture.
Specifically, several animal welfare groups contended that several of the regulations were inhumane and in violation of the state’s legislative mandate to issue humane livestock standards. The Superior Court of New Jersey, appellate division, agreed with the Department, holding that
the challenged regulations are consistent with the agency's legislative mandate, and are neither arbitrary, nor unreasonable.
This Judgment was Affirmed in Part, Reversed in Part by New Jersey Soc. for Prevention of Cruelty to Animals v. New Jersey Dept. of Agriculture, 196 N.J. 366,955 A.2d 886 (N.J., 2008).
|
|
New Jersey Revision of Statutes 1709-1877: Chapter XII: An act for the prevention of cruelty to animals. |
A compilation of the New Jersey anti-cruelty laws as of 1877. The laws covered include treatment of animals, penalties, and exceptions for scientific experiments. |
|
New Jersey Revision of Statutes 1709-1877: Chapter XII Supplement: An act for the prevention of cruelty to animals. |
A supplement to the New Jersey Revision of Statutes for 1877. The supplement covered standing for officer's of New Jersey Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals. In addition, the supplement addresses the question of jurisdiction for the enforcement the anti-cruelty laws. |
|
McDougall v. Lamm (unpublished) |
Plaintiff witnessed her dog be killed by Defendant's dog. The court held that Plaintiff’s damages were limited to her dog's “intrinsic” monetary value or its replacement cost. Plaintiff was not entitled to compensation for the emotional distress she experienced in witnessing the attack.
|
|
McDougall v. Lamm |
This New Jersey case considered whether a pet owner should be permitted to recover for emotional distress caused by observing the traumatic death of that pet. The incident giving rise to this case occurred when plaintiff's "maltipoo" dog was attacked and killed by a neighbor's larger dog as she was walking her dog. Plaintiff then brought an action against the owner of the larger dog, alleging negligence and emotional distress. The lower court entered partial summary judgment to the owner of the large dog on the emotional distress claim, and a bench trial awarded plaintiff replacement costs for her dog. On appeal here, the Supreme Court recognized that while many individuals develop close, familial bonds with their pets, expanding a cause of action for emotional distress due to the loss of a pet would create "ill-defined and amorphous cause of action that would elevate the loss of pets to a status that exceeds the loss of all but a few human beings."
|
