Summary: The California Department of Housing and Community Development requires each housing development to authorize a resident of the housing development to own or maintain one or more common household pets within a resident's dwelling unit.
Summary: This California statute makes it unlawful to remove a hunting dog's collar without having written permission from the dog's owner.
Summary: This California law, effective January of 2019, allows to court to enter an order, at the request of a party, for a party to care for the pet animal prior to the entry of a final order. The existence of an order providing for the care of a pet animal during the course of proceedings for dissolution of marriage or for legal separation of the parties shall not have any impact on the court's final determination of ownership of the pet animal.
Summary: This law states that any person who has a special ownership in any horses, mules, cattle, or other stock killed or wounded by any railroad trains running in this state may sue the company running the trains for the damages within 12 months of the injury.
Summary: This Connecticut law enacted in 2017 states that the Judicial Branch shall maintain on its Internet web site (1) notice that the court may exercise its discretion to permit a dog to provide comfort and support to a testifying witness, (2) a hyperlink to the Internet web site of an organization that provides information regarding animal-assisted therapy resources, and (3) if applicable, a hyperlink to information regarding such resources on the Internet web site of the Division of Criminal Justice.
Summary: This Nevada law is aimed at aquatic invasive and injurious species. It states that, except as provided, it is unlawful, except by the written consent and approval, for any person at any time to receive, bring, or remove from one stream or body of water in this State to any other, or from one portion of the State to any other, or to any other state, any aquatic life or wildlife, or any spawn, eggs or young of any of them. A person who knowingly or intentionally introduces or attempts to introduce an aquatic invasive species or injurious aquatic species into any waters of this State is guilty of a misdemeanor for a first offense, and a category E felony for subsequent offenses. Additionally, a person convicted must pay a civil penalty of at least $25,000 but not more than $250,000, which is deposited into the Wildlife Account in the State General Fund to fight aquatic invasive species.
Summary: This section of the Family Law Code defines "domestic or family violence" as "[a]busing (as described in IC 35-46-3-0.5), torturing (as described in IC 35-46-3-0.5), mutilating (as described in IC 35-46-3-0.5), or killing a vertebrate animal without justification with the intent to threaten, intimidate, coerce, harass, or terrorize a family or household member."
Summary: First, the author will discuss how the Courts are beginning to apply this “best interest” approach, even if that state has no law in place to protect the animal’s best interest. Secondly, the author will analyze the three state laws that have currently been established to protect the interest of pets in divorce proceedings. Lastly, the author will provide a proposal to guide a Court’s analysis of the best interest of the animal in divorce proceedings.
Summary: This New Hampshire statute defines "property" for purposes of the state's marriage dissolution (divorce) procedure. In August of 2019, a new provision was added to this law related to animals (Subsection II-a). This subsection states that "[t]angible property shall include animals. In such cases, the property settlement shall address the care and ownership of the parties' animals, taking into consideration the animals' wellbeing."
Summary: Part I of this Article will discuss abusive training practices in breed industries such as the Tennessee Walking Horse and American Quarter Horse, before briefly examining similar practices in other performance horse industries. Turning to federal efforts to eliminate the abuse, Part II examines the Horse Protection Act of 1970 (“HPA” or “Act”), including its legal history and current administration. Part III considers horse show industry attitudes toward horse treatment, particularly among trainers, owners, and exhibitors. Part IV deals with HPA's inadequate protection of competition horses, while Part V suggests a solution that is further developed in the Proposal section.
