Indiana

Summary: In Indiana, a person needs a permit to import live fish or any living wild animal into the state for release. A permit may be granted only upon proof that the animals are free of a communicable disease, will not become a nuisance, and will not cause damage to a native wild or domestic species.

Summary: These statutes comprise Indiana's assistance animal/guide dog laws.

Summary: Dogs are considered personal property in Indiana (repealed).

Summary: These Indiana statutes set out the definitions related to endangered species and prohibit any form of possession of listed species, including taking, transporting, purchasing or selling except by permit.  Listed species may be removed, captured, or destroyed if it is shown by good cause that the species are causing property damage or are a danger to human health.

Summary: No person shall own, keep or harbor a Pit Bull Terrier, Rottweiler, or Chow dog or any other breed of animal that meets the definition of a vicious or ferocious animal as described in section 4-1 in Fowler, Indiana.

Summary: In Beech Grove, Indiana, a dog's ears may only be cropped by a licensed veterinarian and only if a licensed veterinarian signs a certificate stating that the operation is necessary for the dog's health or comfort. Any person convicted of violating this provision shall have his or her permit to own a dog revoked and shall not be issued a new permit for a period of 1 year. This person shall also be fined anywhere between $10 and $200

Summary: The Defendant was charged with unlawfully and cruelly torturing, tormenting, and needlessly mutilating a goose under Ind. Rev. Stat. § 2101 (1881).  At issue was the ownership status of the goose.  The affidavit alleged that the goose was the property of an unknown person, and thus was the equivalent of an averment that the goose was a domestic fowl, as required by Ind. Rev. Stat. § 2101 (1881).  The court noted that whenever the ownership of the animal is charged, such ownership becomes a matter of description and must be proved as alleged.  Interestingly, the court in this case also observed that there is "a well defined difference between the offence of malicious or mischievous injury to property and that of cruelty to animals," with the latter only becoming an indictable offense within recent years.  The Supreme Court held that the motion to quash should have been overruled and reversed and remanded the case for further proceedings.

Summary: Defendant was convicted of cruelty to animals and practicing veterinary medicine without a license after cropping several puppies' ears with a pair of office scissors while under no anesthesia.  Defendant maintained that the evidence is insufficient to support the conviction for cruelty to an animal because the State failed to present sufficient evidence to rebut and overcome his defense that he engaged in a reasonable and recognized act of handling the puppies. The court held that the evidence supported conviction for cruelty under the definition of "torture."  Further the evidence supported conviction for unauthorized practice where defendant engaged in a traditional veterinary surgical procedure and received remuneration for his services. 

Summary: A complaint regarding the welfare of horses led to the defendant being convicted of 6 charges of animal cruelty, all of which were class A misdemeanors. Upon appeal, the defendant argued that he had not knowingly waived his right to a jury trial, that Indiana’s animal cruelty law was unconstitutionally vague and that there was no sufficient evidence to overcome a defense of necessity. The appeals court agreed that the defendant did not knowingly waive his right to a jury trial and therefore reversed and remanded the case on that issue; however, the appeals court disagreed with the defendant on the other issues.  The case was affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded.

Summary: Postal carrier sued landlord for negligence after tenant's dog bit her.  The Court of Appeals affirmed summary judgment for defendant, holding that landlord did not have a duty to keep dog from biting postal carrier absent control over the property.