Results
Displaying 21 - 30 of 6637
| Title | Citation | Alternate Citation | Agency Citation | Summary | Type | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Derecho Animal Volume 4 Núm 4 |
|
Policy | ||||
| MA - Initiatives - Question 3, Minimum Size Requirements for Farm Animal Containment (2016) | Question 3 | Massachusetts Question 3 is a law proposed by initiative petition and appears on the 2016 ballot. This proposed law would prohibit any farm owner or operator from knowingly confining any breeding pig, calf raised for veal, or egg-laying hen in a way that prevents the animal from lying down, standing up, fully extending its limbs, or turning around freely. The Secretary of the Commonwealth's official summary states: "This proposed law would prohibit any farm owner or operator from knowingly confining any breeding pig, calf raised for veal, or egg-laying hen in a way that prevents the animal from lying down, standing up, fully extending its limbs, or turning around freely. The proposed law would also prohibit any business owner or operator in Massachusetts from selling whole eggs intended for human consumption or any uncooked cut of veal or pork if the business owner or operator knows or should know that the hen, breeding pig, or veal calf that produced these products was confined in a manner prohibited by the proposed law. The proposed law would exempt sales of food products that combine veal or pork with other products, including soups, sandwiches, pizzas, hotdogs, or similar processed or prepared food items." A "yes" vote would prohibit any confinement of pigs, calves, and hens that prevents them from lying down, standing up, fully extending their limbs, or turning around freely. A "no" vote would make no change in current laws relative to the keeping of farm animals. | Statute | |||
| TX - Rehabilitation, wildlife - Subchapter C. Wildlife Rehabilitation Permits | 31 TX ADC § 69.43 - 53 | 31 TAC § 69.43 - 53 | This chapter of Texas regulations provide the requirements to obtain a wildlife rehabilitation permit. The qualifications to obtain a wildlife rehabilitation permit are also outlined. General facilities standards and inspection requirements are provided. | Administrative | ||
| LA - Cruelty - Chapter 17. Cruelty to Animals (Corporations for Prevention of Cruelty to Animals) | LSA-R.S. 3:2391 - 2501 | These chapters concerns the powers and duties of Louisiana corporations for prevention of cruelty to animals. | Statute | |||
| DE - Pet Sales - CHAPTER 40. PET WARRANTIES | 6 Del.C. § 4001 - 4011 | DE ST TI 6 § 4001 - 4011 | This Delaware statutory section comprises the state's "pet warranty" laws. Purchasers receive a statement of the dog's breed and any registration information when buying pets from a retail pet store under the law. Sellers are required to disclose any known disease or illness at the time of sale. Further, sellers must provide the following written statement when selling a registered pet: "A pedigree or a registration does not assure proper breeding condition, health, quality or claims to lineage." Buyers may receive a refund or replacement, or have veterinary expenses reimbursed by a seller where a dog becomes ill or dies within 20 days of purchase (or within two years for a congenital disorder). | Statute | ||
| McBride v. Orr | 466 A.2d 952 (N.H., 1983) | 124 N.H. 66, 42 A.L.R.4th 835 (N.H. 1983) |
In this New Hampshire case, defendant animal control officer killed plaintiff’s dog believing that it was in pursuit of a deer. Defendant claimed immunity pursuant to a state statute. The Court reversed and remanded for a determination of damages for the plaintiff. The Court went on to state that the purpose of the statute was not to authorize defendant’s killing of plaintiff’s dog when the dog was no longer pursuing the deer. |
Case | ||
| Morgan v. State | 656 S.E.2d 857(Ga.App., 2008) | 2008 WL 142325 (Ga.App.), 289 Ga.App. 209 (2008) |
Deputy removed sick and malnourished animals from Defendant's property, initiated by a neighbor's call to the Sheriff. Defendant was convicted in a jury trial of cruelty to animals. He appealed, alleging illegal search and seizure based on lack of exigent circumstances to enter his property. The court found that deputy's entry into the home was done with Morgan's lawful consent, and, as such, the subsequent seizure of the dogs in the home was based on the deputy's plain view observations in a location where he was authorized to be. |
Case | ||
| Decision Shrimp Farm in Cayapas Natural Reserve - Ecuador - Do not publish yet | CAUSA No. 0507-12-EP | Case | ||||
| NM - Exotic Pets - 19.35.7. Importation of Live Nondomestic Animals Birds and Fish | N.M. Admin. Code 19.35.7.1 - 23 | NM ADC 19.35.7.1 - 23 | This regulation covers persons who desire to bring wildlife species into the state of New Mexico. It may include the general public, pet importers, holders of Class A park licenses, department permitees and others. The stated objective is, "[t]o provide consistent criteria for the importation of live non-domesticated animals into New Mexico and to protect native wildlife against the introduction of contagious or infectious diseases, undesirable species and address human health and safety issues." | Administrative | ||
| CL - Slaughter - Ley 21.3016 | Ley 21.3016 | This law modifies Law No. 19.162, increasing sanctions for violations of animal health regulations in slaughterhouses, and information falsification in the livestock and meat traceability system. This law increases monetary fees from 100 monthly tax units (UTM) to 500 UTM. In addition it adds a paragraph to artiicle 8 of Law No. 19.162 stating the following: "The person who, in an export process, incurs violations of this law related to animal health or traceability will be sanctioned with a fine of 100 to 1,000 monthly tax units and with the confiscation of the products. Additionally, they will be sanctioned with the prohibition of export between three to five years. In case of recidivism within the five years following the end of the prohibition, the conduct will be sanctioned with the perpetual prohibition to export. In the case of a legal person, the same sanction will fall on the natural person or persons controlling the said company and the other companies they control." | Statute |