Animal Law Legal Center home page

Animal Legal and Historical Center Website

On this site you will find a comprehensive repository of information about animal law, including: over 1200 full text cases (US, historical, and UK), over 1400 US statutes, over 60 topics and comprehensive explanations, legal articles on a variety of animal topics and an international collection.

Read more about Animal Legal and Historical Center Website

March-April News

Eight states have laws addressing pets in divorce; what happens when couples aren’t married? Pets are treated as personal property in all 50 states (with the caveat of their special status in criminal law). In 2016, Alaska became the first state to legislatively address the issue of a pet’s “well-being” and disposition during divorce property settlement. Seven other states soon followed suit, including California (2018), Illinois (2018), Maine (2021), New York (2021), New Hampshire (2022), Delaware (2023), and Rhode Island (2024). These laws allowed judges to consider the special nature of pets in property allocation. But what if the parties are not married? Late last year, a Delaware Court of Chancery (a special court that deals with matters of equity) faced this with a former couple who owned a Goldendoodle named “Tucker.” While normally property can be “partitioned” to create an equitable distribution, the judge recognized it is not physically possible to partition a living creation. In this landmark ruling that established auction as the default procedure for “partitioning” a companion animal, V.C. David stated, “[d]ogs are property, but they are not furniture; they are living, sentient beings.” The case is considered final after one party was awarded the dog in an auction and all appeals were finalized. Discover more cases involving companion animals in custody disputes.

Curious about legislative changes from 2025? In 2025, state legislatures continued the incremental expansion of animal law, adding veterinary telehealth provisions, creating cruelty conviction registries, defining torture in cruelty statutes, and establishing wildlife corridor action plans. As was the case with previous years, the pace of legislative change in the animal law realm appears to have slowed. That said, several important changes to anti-cruelty laws occurred, including two states (DE and FL) enacting animal abuser registries and some states refining their anti-cruelty laws to specifically include abandonment and necessary medical care as violations. Iowa and North Carolina joined several states that allow the transport of injured police dogs by ambulance, provided there is no competing human need. More states defined and expanded their definition of "veterinary-client-patient-relationship" (VCPR) to include telemedicine services, thereby expanding the reach of veterinary care. Finally, Massachusetts became the sixth state to ban the non-therapeutic de-clawing of cats. Check out our Table of Statutory Amendments for more.

Missouri seeks to expand “cross-reporting” law to help both animal and domestic violence victims. Cross-reporting laws are laws that either require or allow certain agency professionals to report suspected incidents of cruelty or neglect to other agencies, even if the underlying event falls under a different agency’s jurisdiction. In the context of animal law, this means that a child protective worker could report suspected animal abuse to animal control or animal control could report suspected child abuse or neglect to protective services. About 15 U.S. and D.C. have laws that permit or mandate cross-reporting of abuse. According to a recent article out of Missouri, HB 1298 seeks to add animal control officers and humane investigators to the list of mandatory reporters for child or elder abuse. Not only is animal abuse seen as a “predictor crime” for human violence, but animal control officers have ten times the contact with the public compared to law enforcement officers. Curious to learn more about the importance of cross-reporting laws? Check out our Topic Introduction.

News archives

Cases

Defendant-veterinarian's conviction for animal cruelty upheld after finding "necessary care" encompasses inadequate care during boarding of dog. Boehm v. State, --- S.W.3d ----, 2026 WL 628826 (Tex. App. Mar. 6, 2026). The appellant, Dr. Boehm, challenged her misdemeanor conviction for cruelty to a non-livestock animal under Texas Penal Code § 42.092(b)(3), arguing the evidence was insufficient to prove she unreasonably failed to provide necessary care to a bulldog in her custody during boarding. She contended that the jury charge erroneously included the manner and means of prescribing contraindicated medications, asserting such acts cannot constitute an offense under a statute criminalizing omissions, and that the charge improperly included the culpable mental state of recklessness. The court rejected these arguments, holding that the statute's definition of "necessary care" encompasses acts of care that are inadequate to maintain an animal's good health, and that the plain language of the statute includes recklessness as a culpable mental state. Finding no error in the jury charge and the evidence sufficient to support the conviction, the appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment.

MA animal cruelty conviction affirmed and court clarifies that the charge does not require proof of intent to cause harm by withholding dog's basic needs. Commonwealth v. Bonia, 106 Mass. App. Ct. 421, 274 N.E.3d 1065 (2026), review denied, 2026 WL 747587 (Mass. Mar. 13, 2026). The defendant was convicted of animal cruelty under G. L. c. 272, § 77, after a jury found that she unnecessarily failed to provide proper food, drink, or shelter to her dog, Kayla. The evidence at trial revealed that Kayla was discovered on the defendant’s porch in a state of severe distress, described by the animal control officer as “very emaciated, a lot of bones, just gasping for air,” with her “body functions appear[ing] to be stopping” during transport. On appeal, the defendant argued that she was prejudiced by two struck hearsay statements, that the trial court erred in refusing to instruct the jury that the Commonwealth must prove she intended the dog to suffer, and that the evidence was insufficient to support her conviction. The appellate court held that the curative instructions were sufficient to remedy any prejudice from the struck testimony, and it clarified that the charged provision does not require proof of an intent to cause suffering but only that the defendant intentionally failed to provide the animal’s basic needs. The judgment of conviction was accordingly affirmed.

Court orders stay of discovery pending likely dismissal of novel pro se action from taxpayer seeking recognition of her golden retriever as a "dependent" for tax purposes. Reynolds v. United States Internal Revenue Serv., Slip copy, 2025 WL 3514102 (E.D.N.Y. Dec. 8, 2025). This unpublished memorandum order addresses a pro se action seeking novel legal recognition for domestic companion animals under the Internal Revenue Code. The plaintiff, on behalf of herself and her golden retriever, alleges constitutional violations stemming from the IRS’s categorical exclusion of animals from qualifying as "dependents" for tax purposes, asserting claims under the Equal Protection and Due Process clauses. The court, analyzing a motion to stay discovery pending a motion to dismiss, finds the plaintiff’s claims facially unmeritorious, noting the Internal Revenue Code explicitly defines a dependent as a human "qualifying child" or "qualifying relative." Consequently, the court concludes the defendant has made a strong showing that the action is unlikely to survive dismissal, and that a stay of discovery is warranted to avoid unnecessary burden. The disposition of the motion is to grant the stay of discovery pending resolution of the anticipated motion to dismiss.

Case Archives