Pet Sales
Displaying 51 - 60 of 170
Title |
Summary |
|---|---|
| FAQ: Buying a sick dog in California | This FAQ is based on a reader question concerning the sale of a sick pet in California. |
| GA - Breeding - Chapter 40-13-13. Animal Protection | There regulations set out the requirements for licensing animal shelters, pet dealers, kennels, and stable operators. They also provide provisions for controlling disease and shipping animals into the state. |
| IA - Pet Shop - Chapter 162. Care of Animals in Commercial Establishments. | The purpose of this chapter is to insure that all dogs and cats handled by boarding kennels, commercial kennels, commercial breeders, dealers, and public auctions are provided with humane care and treatment by regulating the transportation, sale, purchase, housing, care, handling, and treatment of such animals. |
| IL - Pet Shops - Chapter 225. Professions and Occupations. | This section comprises Illinois' Animal Welfare Act. The Act is primarily aimed at regulating commercial pet dealers, such as kennels, breeders, and retail pet shops. The provisions include restrictions on the age at which both dogs and cats can be separated from their mothers (8 weeks). |
| IL - Swap Meets - 50/24.1. Swap meets | This law requires that swap meet organizers provide the State with certain records about the presence and sale of animals. |
| 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 - 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 - Health - Article 17. Animal Health and Animal Products. Chapter 18. Crimes and Infractions | This set of Indiana laws covers diseased livestock and the sale of domestic animals. It also provides that a person responsible for livestock or poultry who knowingly or intentionally permits the livestock or poultry to run at large commits a Class B misdemeanor. Another provision states that a person may not import to or export from Indiana for the purpose of sale any dog under the age of eight (8) weeks unless the dog is transported with its dam. |
| IN - Pet Shop Rules - PREVENTION OF CRUELTY TO ANIMALS (PET SHOP RULES), 2016 | |
| Just Puppies, Inc. v. Frosh | The State of Maryland passed a “No More Puppy-Mill Pups Act” which went into effect January 1, 2020. The Act prohibits retail pet stores in Maryland from offering for sale or otherwise transferring or disposing of cats or dogs. Four pet stores, a dog breeder, and a dog broker filed suit against Brian Frosh, the Attorney General of Maryland, the Consumer Protection Division of the Office of the Maryland Attorney General (CPD), the Maryland House Economic Matters Committee, and the Maryland State Senate Finance Committee seeking an injunction prohibiting enforcement of the Act as well as a declaration that it is unconstitutional under the Commerce Clause and the Equal Protection Clause of the United States Constitution. The Defendants were all entitled to sovereign immunity under the Eleventh Amendment, unless an exception were to apply. Under the Ex parte Young exception “private citizens may sue state officials in their official capacities in federal court to obtain prospective relief from ongoing violations of federal law.” The CPD and Committee Defendants were not State officials and, therefore, they did not fall within the Ex parte Young exception. The Ex parte Young exception, however, applied to Mr. Frosh as he was the Attorney General of Maryland since he had some connection with the enforcement of the Act. In Counts I, II, and III, the Plaintiffs alleged that the Puppy-Mill Act violated the Constitution's Commerce Clause. The Court found that the Plaintiffs failed to plausibly allege that the Act discriminated against out-of-state breeders and brokers in its text, in its effect, or in its purpose. Count IV alleged that the Puppy-Mill Act was preempted by the AWA. The Court found that prohibiting Maryland pet stores from selling dogs or cats had no effect on the operation of the AWA. The Puppy-Mill Act's impact on pet stores did not clash with the AWA, because pet stores were explicitly exempt from the AWA. Count V alleged that the Puppy-Mill Act deprived Plaintiffs of their constitutional right to the equal protection of law, in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution. The Court found no merit in this argument. Count VI asserted that the Act created a monopoly prohibited by Article 41 of the Maryland Declaration of Rights. The Court found that the Puppy-Mill Act did not constitute an exclusive right to sell cats and dog in Maryland. Although the Act prohibited brick and mortar stores from participating in the sale of cats and dogs, consumers still had a plethora of choices when seeking to obtain a pet, including rescue shelters, animal control units, USDA licensed breeders and brokers, and unregulated hobby breeders. The Court ultimately dismissed all claims against the CPD and the Committee Defendants and allowed the claims against Brian Frosh to proceed. |