Maryland

Summary: This 2016 law states that a person may not offer for sale, sell, offer to transfer, transfer, barter, trade, or auction a dog or cat at any public place, including a street, parking lot, carnival, swap meet, or fair, among others. The act does not apply to an animal welfare organization or animal control unit displaying dogs or cats for adoption or a prearranged sale of a dog by a dog breeder if not a recurring event. Violation results in a $500 civil penalty for a first violation, a $1,000 civil penalty for a second violation, and a civil penalty for a $1,500 for a third or subsequent violation.

Summary: The Maryland Emergency Management Agency (MEMA) is the agency that oversees the Maryland Emergency Preparedness Program (MEPP). The plan references pets and disaster planning, recognizing the need for mass care services for household pets and service animals in one emergency support functions (ESF), and the need to provide a framework and protective actions for animals in ESF #16.

Summary: This statute prohibits hunting via the Internet with the state of Maryland. Violation of the statute could result in a misdemeanor conviction, a fine not exceeding $10,000, imprisonment, and hunting license revocation.

Summary: Under Maryland law, any person who owns or operates a livery stable or other establishment who gives care or custody to livestock will have a lien on the livestock for any reasonable charge relating to: board and custody, training, veterinarian and blacksmith service, and other maintenance expenses. If the lien is not paid within 30 days after payment is due, the owner of the livery stable is entitled to sell the livestock.

Summary: This Maryland statute deals with the eligibility of restaurants for dog admission. Under the statute, a restaurant with an outdoor dining area may allow a patron’s dog to accompany the patron in the outdoor dining area. The statute requires that the owner of the restaurant notify the local health department of the owner’s intention to allow dogs in the outdoor dining area at least 30 days prior to any dogs being allowed in the outdoor dining area. Additionally, the owner may limit the amount of space available for dogs, the size and type of dog allowed in the outdoor dining area, and may reject and patron with a dog at his or her discretion.

Summary: These regulations state that if a veterinarian suspects animal cruelty, the veterinarian should do the following: (1) Note the condition of the animal upon presentation in the animal's treatment record; (2) Note the basis for suspecting cruelty in the animal's treatment record; and (3) Promptly report the suspected instance of cruelty, including animal fighting, to the appropriate local law enforcement or county animal control agency. A veterinarian who reports, in good faith, a suspected incident of animal cruelty is immune from any civil liability that results from this report.

Summary: The following article discusses Maryland Great Ape law. Maryland regulates possession of Great Apes both expressly via state law as well as indirectly via reference to federal law. At the state level, it bans the importation, sale and transfer of dangerous animals through its anti-cruelty law. (MD CRIM LAW § 10-621) Maryland does not define the term “dangerous animal,” but section (b) lists all non-human primates as one of eight categories of animal that “[a] person may not import into the State, offer for sale, trade, barter, possess, breed, or exchange….” Although Maryland does have several laws that either reference Great Apes specifically or reference federal laws meant to protect Great Apes, many exceptions have been carved out of these protections. As such, Maryland's laws regulating possession and usage of Great Apes is mediocre compared to other states at best.

Summary: County deputies went to a home with a warrant to arrest a couple's son. While many facts in this case were in dispute, the undisputed result was that a deputy shot the family's chocolate Labrador retriever. While the couple left the house to take the dog to the vet, the deputies entered the house—contrary to the couple's express instructions— and arrested the son. The couple filed a complaint in the Circuit Court seeking damages, on a number of theories, for the wounding of the dog and the officers' alleged unlawful entry into their home. After a trial, the couple prevailed against the deputies and the jury awarded damages totaling $620,000 (reduced, after remittitur, to $607,500). The deputies appeal. The Maryland Court of Special Appeals held the issue of whether deputy acted with gross negligence in shooting dog was for the jury; CJ § 11–110 did not limit the couple's total recovery for the constitutional tort to the capped value of their pet's vet bills; the $200,000 jury award in non-economic damages to the couple on their constitutional tort claim was not excessive in light of the evidence; the deputies were entitled to immunity from the constitutional trespass claim; and the couple could not recover emotional damages on the common law trespass claim. The lower court's decision was therefore affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded.

Summary: This statute regulates retail pet stores that sell dogs. According to this statute, a purchaser is allowed remedies if, within two weeks after the purchase of a dog from a pet store, a veterinarian certifies that a dog suffers from or has died from a disease or illness that existed at the time of purchase. The purchaser may also be entitled to remedies if, within three months after the purchase of a dog from a pet store, a veterinarian certifies that the dog possesses or has died from a congenital or hereditary disease the adversely affects the dog's health, requires hospitalization or a non-elective surgical procedure. This statute also discusses a retail pet store's obligations to the purchaser, the limitations to obtaining these remedies, and provides the seller with an opportunity to contest the consumer's demand for remedies.

Summary: A circuit court upheld and enforced a divorce settlement that granted the husband visitation of the couple's dog for one month each summer. After the dog had gotten loose during a past visit and the husband had driven with the dog in the trunk of his car, however, the wife had refused to turn the dog over. The husband later abandoned his fight for visitation with the dog. During the proceedings, however, the Animal Legal Defense Fund filed this amicus curiae brief to urge the court to include in its consideration the needs and interests of the dog. The attached brief sets forth reported case decisions and rulings of other courts that have grappled with the view that companion animals are more than mere chattel.