Results
| Title | Citation | Alternate Citation | Agency Citation | Summary | Type |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| US - PPIA and FMIA Regulations - Rules of Practice | 9 C.F.R. 500.1 - 500.8 | The following Poultry Products Inspection Act and Federal Meat Inspection act regulations detail the provisions for when the Food Safety and Inspection Service can take regulatory control. | Administrative | ||
| US - Meat - Chapter 12. Meat Inspection. | 21 U.S.C.A. § 601 - 695 | The Federal Meat Inspection Act of 1906 (FMIA) was enacted to prevent adulterated or misbranded meat and meat products from being sold as food and to ensure that meat and meat products are slaughtered and processed under sanitary conditions. The Act requires covered meat products to be labeled and packaged in accordance with the chapter to effectively regulate commerce and protect the health and welfare of consumers. | Statute | ||
| AR - Dog - Consolidated Dog Laws | A.C.A. § 20-19-101 to 408; § 2-40-110; § 15-41-113; § 15-42-303; § 5-54-126 | AR ST §§ 20-19-101 to 408; § 2-40-110; § 15-41-113; § 15-42-303; § 5-54-126 | These Arkansas statutes comprise the state's dog laws. Among the provisions including licensing laws, rabies control, and mandatory sterilization laws. Also contained is the state's Wolf-Hybrid statutory section. | Statute | |
| US - Endangered Species - Part 222 - General Endangered and Threatened Marine Species | 69 FR 4557 | 50 C.F.R. § 222.101 to .310 | These ESA (Endangered Species Act) regulations relate to certificate of exemptions for pre-Act endangered species part under the general regulations for endangered and threatened marine species. The Assistant Administrator may issue permits for scientific purposes or for the enhancement of the propagation or survival of the affected endangered or threatened species in accordance with these regulations. Any person to whom a Certificate of Exemption has been issued by the National Marine Fisheries Service may apply to the Assistant Administrator for renewal of such certificate. | Administrative | |
| Hamilton v. State | 128 So.3d 872 (Fla.App. 4 Dist.) | 2013 WL 6670841 (Fla.App. 4 Dist.) |
In this Florida case, the 82-year-old defendant was convicted of a third-degree felony animal cruelty violation (section 828.12(2)) and sentenced to three years' imprisonment. Defendant had his dog on leash and approached too close to a cat, whereupon the leashed dog began to attack the cat. In reversing the decision, the appellate court found that defendant's conduct did not rise to a criminal level, as it was "objectively unlikely" that a leashed dog walking with his owner would inflict such damage. Further, while the issue of sentencing was rendered moot by the reversal, the court found the consideration of a petition with approximately 3,000 signatures demanding the maximum sentence, "an affront to the very notion of due process of law . . ." |
Case | |
| Pedroni, Matías Andrés c/ Capello Marina Alejandra s/ Medidas Precautorias – Familia | Poder Judicial de la Nación, Juzgado Civil 7, Fallo 23536/2021 | This case involves a divorced couple that shared two dogs, Burke and Roma. The divorced couple had an arrangement where they shared custody of the dogs. After a domestic violence accusation filed by Marina Alejandra Capello (the respondent) that resulted in a restraining order, Matías Andrés Pedroni (the petitioner) was no longer allowed to see the dogs. The petitioner filed an injunction asking the judge to grant visitation rights (provisional communication regime in Argentina) so he could see the dogs. The petitioner argued that the capricious decision not to let him see the dogs caused him pain, anguish, and concern because Roma and Burke were his family. The judge concluded that from a non-anthropocentric speciest view, Burke and Roma were non-human members of the family created by the parties and that the love for the dogs did not end with the divorce. On the contrary, it had transcended the relationship of the couple. Therefore, neither party could be forced to forget about their relationship with their dogs, severing the solid emotional bond based on years of living together. | Case | ||
| CA - Farm Animal Cruelty - Chapter 13.8. Farm Animal Cruelty. § 25991. Definitions. | West's Ann. Cal. Health & Safety Code § 25990 - 25994 | CA HLTH & S § 25990 - 25994 | This section provides the definitions, exception,s and enforcement provisions for the Chapter 13.8, Farm Animal Cruelty. The section was added after voters approved Initiative Measure (Prop. 2) in 2008. Any person who violates any of the provisions of this chapter is guilty of a misdemeanor, and upon conviction thereof shall be punished by a fine not to exceed one thousand dollars ($1,000) or by imprisonment in the county jail for a period not to exceed 180 days or by both such fine and imprisonment. | Statute | |
| EU - Farming - Information Collection during Farm Inspections | (2006/778/EC) |
A decision concerning minimum requirements for the collection of information during inspections of calf, pig, and hen farms. Passed in recognition of the fact that collection of data on animal welfare inspections is essential for the European Community to evaluate the impact of its policy in this field, the directive standardized farm inspection reporting procedures, and required annual reports from each member state outlining (a) the most serious instances of non-compliance with EU law, and (b) what was being done to diminish such non-compliance. |
Statute | ||
| US - Wolf - Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Final Rule Designating | 2007 WL 408325 (F.R.) |
Establishes the Western Great Lakes Distinct Population Segment (DPS) of the gray wolf and removes the DPS from the list of endangered and threatened wildlife. |
Administrative | ||
| U.S. v. Hale | 545 U.S. 1112 (2005) | 125 S.Ct. 2914 (2005) |
This opinion vacates and remands U.S. v. Hale, 2004 WL 2367994. |
Case |