Results
Displaying 6631 - 6638 of 6638
| Title | Citation | Alternate Citation | Summary | Type |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| WY - Cruelty, livestock - Chapter 29. Protection of Livestock Animals. | W. S. 1977 §§ 11-29-101 to 115 | WY ST §§ 11-29-101 to 115 | This chapter concerns cruelty to livestock animals. The laws state that every person who confines or causes to be confined any livestock animal under the laws of this state, must supply to the livestock animal during confinement a sufficient quantity of wholesome food and water. The section also provides that officers and agents of the Wyoming livestock board must be provided with a certificate and badge. Any peace officer, agent or officer of the board may lawfully interfere to prevent the perpetration of any act of cruelty upon any livestock animal in his or her presence | Statute |
| SC - Pet Sales - § 47-13-160. Fitness of registered companion dog or cat for sale; definitions; certifications; remedies. | Code 1976 § 47-13-160 | SC ST § 47-13-160 | This South Carolina statute provides that no pet dealer, pet shop, or pet breeder shall sell a registered companion dog or cat without providing to the purchaser a statement certifying that the dog or cat has received an infectious disease inoculation. If at any time within fourteen days following the sale and delivery of a registered companion dog or cat to a purchaser, a licensed veterinarian certifies the animal to be unfit for purchase due to a noncongenital cause or condition or within six months certifies an animal to be unfit for purchase due to a congenital or hereditary cause or condition, a purchaser has the right to elect one of the following options described in the statute. This section is apparently limited to registered dogs or cats. | Statute |
| Brock v. Rowe | Stan Brock, a former NFL star, is suing is neighbor for shooting his two dogs with a bow and arrow. This is an opposition to a motion to dismiss on a claim of emotional distress for loss of family pets. The motion was successful. | Pleading | ||
| Earth Island Inst. v. Evans | 256 F. Supp. 2d 1064 (N.D. Cal. 2003) | Plaintiff, groups seeking to protect animals, sought to enjoin implementation of a final finding of defendant, the Secretary of Commerce and his Assistant Administrator of Fisheries, that the encirclement of dolphins with purse seine nets was not having an adverse impact on dolphin stocks as arbitrary, capricious, and an abuse of discretion. The court granted the groups' motion for preliminary injunction, enjoined the Secretary from taking any action to allow any tuna product to be labeled as "dolphin safe" that was harvested using purse seine nets, pending final disposition of the groups' action, and defined what "dolphin safe" would continue to mean. | Case | |
| CA - Food service - § 114259.4 Food service employees handling or caring for animals on premises | West's Ann. Cal. Health & Safety Code § 114259.4 | CA HLTH & S § 114259.4 | California's Health Code specifies that employees working in the food industry are only allowed to handle or care for their service animals or fish/shellfish/crustaceans in display tanks if they wash their hands. Outside of this they are not to handle other animals that may be present. | Statute |
| Center for Biological Diversity v. U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service | 342 F.Supp.3d 968 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 21, 2018) | 2018 WL 4538622 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 21, 2018) | Center for Biological Diversity ("CBD") filed an action for declaratory and injunctive relief under the Endangered Species Act, seeking protection for the Pacific fisher (a medium-sized brown mammal in the weasel family found only in North America). All parties moved for summary judgment. The CBD was the party that submitted the original petition to list this distinct population segment as endangered in 2000 (after various petitions were filed since 1990 with no action). In 2014, the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service (the "Service") publicly proposed to list the Pacific fisher as threatened and sought public comment. In April 2016, the Service withdrew the proposed listing, finding that: populations will persist in the future; wildfires will have beneficial consequences; there "may be" breeding and interchange with other populations; and there were only a small number of confirmed deaths due to toxicosis from anticoagulant rodenticides. Plaintiffs now challenge that listing reversal as arbitrary and capricious, and seek an order requiring the Service to publish a new rule within 90 days based on “the best scientific and commercial data available." This court first examined the effect of anticoagulant rodenticides on the Pacific fisher. The court found the Service's assessment of the increase of the emerging threat from toxicosis was arbitrary and capricious, and that the Service "cherry picked" the Gabriel study to say that the study was uncertain. As to population trends, the court found that the Service based its conclusion on limited and inconclusive trend data and ignored the studies' conclusions. In fact, the court stated, "[h]ere, the absence of conclusive evidence of Pacific fisher persistence does not stand alone. The Service does not dispute that the Pacific fisher population has declined dramatically." In the end, the court granted plaintiff CBD motion for summary judgment and denied defendant Service's motion. The court directed the Service to prepare a new rule by March 22, 2019 (which denied plaintiff's motion for a 90-day rule and also denied the Service's request to "brief the timeline in order to evaluate staffing and budget constraints"). | Case |
| VA - Impound - § 3.2-6548. Private animal shelters; confinement and disposition of animals; affiliation with foster care providers; penalties; injunctive relief | Va. Code Ann. § 3.2-6548 | VA ST § 3.2-6548 | This Virginia statute outlines the requirements for private animal shelters. Included are provisions that each animal shelter must obtain a signed statement from each of its directors, operators, and staff specifying that the individual has never been convicted of animal cruelty, neglect, or abandonment. The State Veterinarian's office is responsible for inspection of the facilities to be sure the spaces for animals are adequate. The statute also describes the requirements for animal foster care homes and states the penalties for violations of this statutory section. | Statute |
| OH - Ordinance - 955.221 County, township, and municipal corporation ordinances to control dogs | R.C. § 955.221 | OH ST § 955.221 | This Ohio statute provides that a board of county commissioners, board of township trustees, municipal corporation may adopt and enforce resolutions to control dogs that are not otherwise in conflict with any other provision of the Revised Code. These ordinances or resolutions to control dogs include, but are not limited to, ordinances or resolutions concerned with the ownership, keeping, or harboring of dogs, the restraint of dogs, dogs as public nuisances, and dogs as a threat to public health, safety, and welfare, except that such ordinances or resolutions shall not prohibit the use of any dog which is lawfully engaged in hunting or training for the purpose of hunting while accompanied by a licensed hunter. | Statute |