Alabama

Summary: This set of laws authorizes all cities and towns to regulate animals and animal related conditions that pose a threat to the public health.

Summary: This set of statutes authorizes all cities and towns to enact local ordinances to prevent dangerous, unwholesome, or offensive conditions and to abate public nuisances.

Summary: This statute authorizes each county commission to enact ordinances for the control of animals and animal nuisances.

Summary: In Mobile, Alabama, animal-drawn passenger vehicles are restricted to horse drawn carriages. The following ordinances provide the restrictions and requirements placed upon the operations of these carriages within the city.

Summary: In Lanett, Alabama, it is unlawful to keep, harbor, own, or possess any pit bull or presa canario dog. Dogs that were within the city on the effective date may be kept within the city subject to certain requirements, such as keeping the dog properly confined, using a leash and muzzle, posting a “Beware of dog” sign, the maintenance of liability insurance of $100,000, and the taking of identification photographs. A violation is a misdemeanor, and could result in a fine up to $500 and/or imprisonment up to 30 days.

Summary: In Irondale, Alabama, it is unlawful to keep, harbor, own or possess any pit bull dog. However, pit bull dogs registered on the date of publication may be kept within the city subject to certain requirements. These requirements include proper confinement, the use of a leash and muzzle, the posting of “Beware of Dog” signs, the taking of identification photographs, and the maintenance of liability insurance ($50,000). Failure to comply may result in the seizure of the dog, a fine up to $500 and/or imprisonment up to 30 days. The city also bans Presa Canario dogs.

Summary: The Defendant was charge with cruelty to animals for the killing of a certain spotted bull, belonging some person to the jurors unknow.  The lower court found the Defendant guilty.  The Defendant then appealed to the Supreme Court seeking review of whether the defense of provocation could be used.  The Court determined the answer to be yes. Thus the Court reversed and remanded the case.

Summary: The defendant was charged under the Alabama cruelty to animal statute killing a dog.  The trial court found the defendant guilty of cruelly killing the dog.  The defendant appealed the descision to the Supreme Court for the determination if the killing of the dog with a rifle was cruel.  The Supreme Court found that the killing of a dog without the showing of cruelty to the animal was not a punishable offence under the cruelty to animal statute.  The Supreme Court reversed the lower court's descision and remanded it.

Summary: In Parker v. Miser , 27 Ala. 480 (Ala. 1855), the court recognized that at common law, an action existed for the conversion or injury to property, and acknowledged dogs as property. The court went on to note that some amount of nominal damage existed for the wrongful killing of an animal, even in the absence of a precise amount. Where the killing of the animal was done in reckless disregard, a plaintiff could seek punitive damages.

Summary: On November 2, 1920, on a “moonlit night”, plaintiff was fox hunting by a railroad track when his dog was hit by the train. Plaintiff claimed that defendant’s employee negligently ran over his dog while acting within the scope of his duties as an operator of the train. The Alabama Supreme Court affirmed a jury award of $50, and held that it was proper for the plaintiff to show the excellent hunting qualities displayed by this dog to determine its market value.