News

  • Judge Appoints Lawyer to Represent Pitbull Facing Euthanasia After Attack on Child (10/12/12)

  • USDA Rule Aimed at Increasing Protection from Soaring (7/26/12)

  • Vicious Dog Owners to Face New Penalties (5/3/12)

  • Dog Bill a Step in the Right Direction (4/27/12)

  • New Study by AVMA Addresses Breeds and Bites (4/17/12)

  • Pit bull dogs no longer automatically "vicious" in Ohio: Ohio Governor Kasich signed HB 14, which amends the state's dangerous dog laws. The previous laws, in effect for 25 years, declared pit bulls to be "inherently vicious." The new law redefines "vicious" and "dangerous" dogs, and also adds a new category of dogs: "nuisance dogs." (Posted 4/2012, Source: Michigan State University's College of Law - Animal Legal and Historical Center)

  • U.S. District Court dismisses case that argued wild-captured orcas are held by Sea World in violation of the Thirteenth Amendment's prohibition on slavery: Plaintiffs contended that the orcas are "held as slaves" in Sea World's facilities. The court stated that the "clear language and historical context reveal that only human beings, or persons, are afforded the protection of the Thirteenth Amendment." (Posted 4/2012, Source: Michigan State University's College of Law - Animal Legal and Historical Center)

  • Idaho gets one step closer to passing felony animal cruelty law. On February 14, the Idaho Senate passed SB 1303 with just one "no" vote. The proposed law would make aggravated cruelty- torture and an enhanced penalty provision for 3rd or subsequent convictions - a felony. Idaho is just one of three states including North Dakota and South Dakota without a felony cruelty law. (Posted 4/2012, Source: Michigan State University's College of Law - Animal Legal and Historical Center)

  • Futch v. State- S.E.2d, 2012 WL 603655 (Ga., 2012). Defendantappealed conviction of cruelty to animals for shooting and killing a neighbor's dog because the dog was barking at defendant's goats. The Court of Appeals held that the restitution award of $3,000 was warranted by a preponderance of the evidence even though the owner only paid $750 for the dog. The dog was a one-year-old labrador retriever that had been trained to hunt and retrieve, and an expert testified that such a dog had a fair market value between $3,000 and $5,000.