Pet Sales

Displaying 141 - 150 of 174
Titlesort descending Summary
State v. Siliski


The defendant operated a dog breeding business, “Hollybelle's Maltese,” in which she bred purebred Maltese dogs in her Franklin home, advertised the resulting puppies on an Internet website, and shipped the puppies to buyers located around the country. She was convicted by a Williamson County Circuit Court jury of eleven counts of animal cruelty. The main issue on appeal concerned the imposition of sentence, which included both consecutive terms of probation and a permanently prohibition from engaging in any commercial activity involving animals. The appellate court affirmed the defendant's convictions but concluded that the trial court erred by ordering consecutive periods of probation in conjunction with concurrent sentences. However, the court found that  the trial court's permanent prohibition against her buying, selling, breeding, or engaging in any commercial activity involving animals  was authorized by the animal cruelty statute. As the court stated, "Given this proof and the court's findings, we cannot conclude that the trial court erred in ordering that the defendant be permanently barred from engaging in commercial activity with respect to dogs."
State v. Warren Cathie Iris Warren was convicted of three felony counts of aggravated animal cruelty, five felony counts of aggravated cruelty, and a misdemeanor cruelty to animals count. Warren appealed contending that the district court erred by denying Warren’s motion to suppress evidence obtained in a warrantless search of her commercial kennel property, denying Warren’s Baston challenge, and in imposing costs to be reimbursed by Warren under Montana law. Cathie Iris Warren operated a kennel on her residential property in Libby, Montana. Warren obtained her initial license to operate her business in 2013. In 2016 it was discovered that Warren was operating her kennel despite the fact that her business license had expired in October of 2015. In order to obtain a new license, Warren needed to have an inspection of her property. Warren ended up having three separate inspections of her property. After each inspection, Warren had failed to meet the requirements. The members of the Health Department who were involved in the inspections became concerned that the animals were not being adequately cared for and were not of good health. Warren could not provide appropriate vaccination records for all of her animals. A search warrant was executed on Warren’s property on August 2, 2016. Warren’s animals were seized the same day. Warren moved to suppress the evidence that was obtained arguing that a warrant was required for each inspection that had been conducted on her property. The court concluded that there was no search because Warren did not have an expectation of privacy in her commercial kennel operation that society would consider objectively reasonable. The trial court convicted Warren and found that Warren owed statutorily-imposed costs, including veterinary care, food and supplies, excess hours worked by county employees, and travel costs as well as the shelter’s lost revenue. Warren appealed her conviction and sentence. The Supreme Court of Montana found that Warren treated parts of her home as part of her kennel, therefore, those areas of her home that were searched were considered commercial property which is subject to a less significant expectation of privacy. The Court concluded that the administrative inspection fell within the applicable warrant exception, was reasonable, and did not require a search warrant. Warren also challenged the State’s peremptory challenge of a minority juror (Baston Challenge). The Court concluded that the District Court reached the right conclusion on the Baston challenge but for the wrong reason. Warren’s third challenge was whether the District Court erred in calculating the statutory costs owed by Warren. The Court found that the costs approved by the District Court were reasonably supported by the evidence. The Court ultimately affirmed the judgment of the District Court.
Swap Meet Laws
Table of Pet Purchaser Protection Acts As of 2023, 22 U.S. states have enacted Pet Purchaser Protection Acts, which are commonly known as Puppy Lemon Laws, for the purpose of exactly what the name implies: purchaser protection. In order to accomplish this goal, a typical Pet Purchaser Protection Act requires the seller to make certain disclosures about an animal that is offered for sale, while also affording the purchaser a remedy if a diseased animal is purchased from the seller. This table reveals the types of animals and sellers covered under these acts, as well as the types of remedies that are available and the limitations to these remedies.
Table of State Commercial Pet Breeders Laws This table covers state laws and administrative regulations affecting commercial dog breeders. The table defines a commercial breeder, describes whether a state has an upper limit of dogs a breeder can possess at one time, whether a state has minimum standards of care, inspection provisions, and penalties for violations. This table does not include pet purchaser protection acts.
Table of State Laws Concerning Minimum Age for Sale of Puppies This table summarizes state laws and administrative regulations concerning the minimum age to sell a puppy. Approximately 28 states and D.C. have a law or regulation that addresses the sale of puppies under a certain age (usually 8 weeks).
TN - Breeder -Part 7. Commercial Breeder Act (Expired June 30, 2014). In 2009, Tennessee enacted its Commercial Breeder Act. The act defines a commercial breeder as means any person who possesses or maintains, under the person’s immediate control, twenty (20) or more unsterilized adult female dogs or cats in this state for the purpose of selling the offspring as companion animals. Commercial breeders must maintain and display licenses to operate in accordance with the act. Further, the act requires commercial breeders to keep on file at all times the number of dogs and cats in their possession and how many were sold during the reporting period. Inspections may occur under the act, but are not mandatory.
TN - Breeders - Chapter 1200-33-01. Commercial Breeders This chapter of Tennessee regulations implements the Commercial Breeder Act, T.C.A. § 44-17-701, et. seq. The section requires that a commercial breeder apply for license and comply with licensure requirements. Standards of care are governed by the federal regulations for the Humane Handling, Care, Treatment, and Transportation of Dogs and Cats under the Animal Welfare Act, found at 9 CFR §3.1 through 3.19.
Toney v. Glickman Plaintiffs were in the business of selling animals to research facilities. The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) found that they had committed hundreds of violations of the Animal Welfare Act, 7 U.S.C. §§ 2131 et seq. The ALH then imposed what was, to that point, the harshest sanction, $200,000, in the history of the Act. The Judicial Officer affirmed the ALJ's findings and denied the Plaintiffs' request to reopen the hearing for consideration of new evidence. While the 8th Circuit affirmed most of these findings, it held that the evidence did not support all of them. Accordingly, the court remanded the matter to the Department for redetermination of the sanction. The court also affirmed the Judicial Officer's refusal to reopen the hearing and denied the Plaintiffs' Request for Leave to Adduce Additional Evidence. The Plaintiffs were free, however, to seek leave to offer this additional evidence on remand to the extent it was relevant to the sanction.
Trade in Wild-Caught Reptiles

Pages