Results
Displaying 6591 - 6600 of 6638
| Title | Citation | Alternate Citation | Agency Citation | Summary | Type | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sentencia 09333-2022-00667T - Ecuador | Proceso No. 09333-2022-00667T | This is the case of four cats (Luna, Manchas, Sonic, and Tiger) and two dogs (Pantera and Noah) that were inside the properties seized by the authorities in a drug trafficking case. Attorney Kevin Prendes Vivar filed a habeas corpus petition for the animals' caretaker, stating that the animals were illegally kept by the "Technical Secretary of Real Estate Management of the Public Sector" or "Inmobiliar," the government agency that seized the properties. The claimant argued that in accordance with the Constitutional Court decision 253-20-JH/22 (Estrellita case), the companion animals in the case are subjects of rights, that were left unattended, exposing them to potential health and well-being concerns, given their emotional attachment to their caretakers. The provincial court of Guyanas granted the habeas corpus, holding that animals are subjects of rights, finding that Inmobiliar had violated the animals' rights by considering them seizable personal property. | Case | ||||||||
| Proyecto de Resolución del Amparo en Revisión 630/2017 - Mexico | Proyecto de Resolución del Amparo en Revisión 630/2017 | This is a draft of a withdrawn “Amparo” decision, but it is relevant as it highlights the connection between the human right to a healthy environment and the duty to protect animals. In particular, it sheds light on how this right influences the legal assessment of bullfighting’s legality. In this case, the plaintiff, Promociones y Espectáculos Zapaliname, S.A. de C.V., a company whose purpose is to organize bullfighting events, initiated a legal action, known as an “Amparo” against various individuals and governmental entities in the state of Coahuila. The complaint specifically targeted the State Governor, the State Congress, the Secretary of the Government, the State Director of the Official Newspaper, the State Secretary of the Environment, and the State Deputy Director of the Official Newspaper. The plaintiff alleged before the Coahuila’s Second District Court that the 2015 amendment to the law for the protection and dignified treatment of animals in Coahuila, which prohibited bullfighting and similar practices, as well as other associated regulations, infringed upon their rights to employment, property, and cultural expression. The court dismissed the case regarding article 20, fraction XIV of Coahuila’s law for the protection and dignified treatment of animals due to lack of legal interest as the application of these provisions was not substantiated and because such provisions were hetero-applicative. Therefore, the provisions were not applicable. The court also dismissed the “Amparo” regarding Article 20, fraction XIV of the same law. The plaintiff appealed the opinion before the Collegiate Court on Administrative and Civil Matters of the Eighth Circuit, which ordered transferring the case to the Fourth Collegiate Circuit Court of the Auxiliary Center of the Tenth Region. This court upheld the lower court’s decision, deeming the legal action non-justiciable. In addition, the court requested the revision of the case and transferred the case to the Supreme Court of Justice. The Second Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice heard the case de novo. In this opportunity, the court upheld the constitutionality of article 20, fraction XIV of Coahuila’s animal protection law. The judge held that, “[t]he protection of species is immersed within the very concept of the environment, since animals are part of those elements that comprise it.” The judge held that the right to a healthy environment encompasses the protection of animals, an element of the environment. With this decision, the court moves away from a pure property conception of animals. Moreover, the court underscores the existence of various laws that recognize the need to treat animals humanely and prohibit cruel treatment towards them. These laws include the Federal Animal Health Law, the General Law of Ecological Balance and Environmental Protection, the General Wildlife Law, and the Mexican Official NOM-033-SAG/ZOO-2014. It is important to note that, despite the absence of a national anti-cruelty law in Mexico, these regulations serve as a foundation for animal welfare, even though Mexico does not have a national anti-cruelty law. The court further states that this legal framework shows that the constitutional right to a healthy environment enables the ban on bullfighting established in the amendment of the Coahuila law the plaintiff seeks to invalidate. Such a law is a means to fulfill the general laws enacted to protect and treat animals with dignity. By allowing this cruel practice, the court also asserted that animals suffer and die for the sake of entertainment, which causes a detriment to the general societal interest to protect the human rights to a healthy environment related to the protection and conservation of species established in Article 4 of the Constitution. In addition, the court further stated that invalidating this amendment would constitute a regression that would diminish the need for governments to adopt gradual measures to protect animals. | Case | ||||||||
| IN - Registration of Cattle Premises - THE PREVENTION OF CRUELTY TO ANIMALS (REGISTRATION OF CATTLE PREMISES) RULES, 1978 | The Rules, adopted under the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, provide for the registration of premises having five or more heads of cattle kept for the purpose of profit. The owner of the premises must apply for a certificate and the premises shall be open for inspection at all reasonable times. On premises where milch cattle are kept, a copy of Section 12 of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act must be displayed in the local language. The provision prohibits the performance of 'phooka' or 'doom dev '. | Statute | |||||||||
| Mexico Convention for the Protection of Migratory Birds and Game Mammals | TS 912 | Per Digest of Federal Resource Laws of Interest to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service: This 1936 treaty adopted a system for the protection of certain migratory birds in the United States and Mexico. Allows, under regulation, the rational use of certain migratory birds. Provides for enactment of laws and regulations to protect birds by establishment of closed seasons and refuge zones. Prohibits killing of insectivorous birds, except under permit when harmful to agriculture. Provides for enactment of regulations on transportation of game mammals across the United States-Mexican border. Signed in Mexico City, February 7, 1936, this treaty was ratified by the President of the United States on October 8, 1936, and documents of ratification were exchanged on March 15, 1937, in Washington, D.C. United States implementation of the treaty was accomplished by amending the Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918 (16 U.S.C. 703-711; 40 Stat. 755) on June 20, 1936 (49 Stat. 1556). The treaty was amended March 10, 1972 (23 U.S.T. 260; T.I.A.S. 7302) to add 32 additional families of birds including eagles, hawks, owls, and Corvidae family. The treaty was amended in 1995 to establish a legal framework for the subsistence take of birds in Alaska and northern Canada by Alaska Natives and Aboriginal people in Canada. The Senate provided its advice and consent to the amendments in November, 1997. The treaty was formally implemented in 1999. | Treaty | ||||||||
| U.S. v. Wilgus | 2001 U.S. App. LEXIS 17700; 32 ELR 20031; 2001 Colo. J. C.A.R. 3976 (10th Cir. 2001) |
This opinion was vacated by the Hardman order. Defendant was not a member of a federally-recognized tribe nor a person of Native American ancestry, but sincerely practiced Native American religions. In response to Wilgus's free exercise challenge, the court held that the Act is a neutral, generally applicable law, falling within the safe-harbor created by Employment Division v. Smith . For further discussion on the status of formerly recognized tribes under the BGEPA, please see Detailed Discussion. |
Case | ||||||||
| CA - Damages - Injuries to animals; exemplary damages | West's Ann. Cal. Civ. Code § 3340 | CA CIVIL § 3340 | Exemplary damages may be given for injuries to animals committed in disregard of humanity either willfully or through gross negligence. | Statute | |||||||
| EU - Farming - Council Directive 1999/74/EC laying down minimum standards for the protection of laying hens | Council Directive 1999/74/EC |
The Directive lays down minimum standards for the protection of laying hens. It does not apply to establishments with fewer than 350 laying hens or establishments rearing breeding laying hens. Such establishments are, however, subject to the requirements of Directive 98/58/EC. |
Statute | ||||||||
| Brazil's ban on live cattle exports | 5000325-94.2017.4.03.6135 | This is the case in which a court in Brazil banned live cattle exports from all Brazilian ports based on animal welfare concerns. It is the result of a lawsuit filed by the NGO "Foro Nacional para la Protección y Defensa de los Animales," who requested that this type of animal transport to be banned. In 2018, the court granted a temporary injunction prohibiting live cattle exports. However, this injunction was invalidated by a superior tribunal. In her opinion, the judge stated that "animals are not things. They are sentient living beings—individuals who feel hunger, thirst, pain, cold, anguish, and fear. " In its holding, the judge compares the treatment of animals to the treatment suffered by humans during the slave trade, stating that non-human animals suffer the same treatment in the name of commercial development. Furthermore, the judge concluded that the necessary methods to guarantee the health and well-being of animals in this type of transport were not being adopted and urged for the harmonization between the interests of human animals (economic interest or interest in providing food for the population) with the ethics that must preside over their relations with non-human animals, encouraging the country to be at the forefront in abolishing inappropriate handling and eradicating all types of cruelty against animals. Even though this is a landmark decision, it is important to mention that this is not a final decision constituting legal precedent, and a higher court can invalidate it if it is appealed. | Case | ||||||||
| Derecho Animal Volume 9 Núm 4 |
|
Policy | |||||||||
| KY -Wills and Trusts - 386B.4-080 Trust for care of animal | KRS § 386B.4-020; 386B.4-080 | KY ST § 386B.4-020; 386B.4-080 | A trust may be created to provide for the care of an animal alive during the settlor's lifetime. The trust terminates on the death of the animal or, if the trust was created to provide for the care of more than one (1) animal alive during the settlor's lifetime, on the death of the last surviving animal. | Statute |