Results
Displaying 6591 - 6600 of 6638
| Title | Citation | Alternate Citation | Summary | Type |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Ley Federal Apícola de Mexico | Ley Federal Apícola de Mexico, OFICIO No.: D.G.P.L. 64-Il-6-2694. EXPEDIENTE No. 6197. | It serves as a comprehensive framework for treating and protecting bees, encompassing all activities related to this vital species, explicitly designating apiculture (or beekeeping) as a prioritized activity of public interest. The objectives of this law extend beyond the aforementioned points: 1) Recognizing Bees as Priority Species: The law aims to acknowledge bees as a species of paramount importance in biodiversity preservation, highlighting the need for their protection; 2) Promoting Education and Awareness: An essential aspect of this legislation is promoting education and awareness regarding the importance of respecting, caring for, protecting, conserving, and fostering a deep appreciation for bees; 3) Equal Status with Livestock: The law seeks to elevate their status to the same level as cattle. Consequently, stealing bees would be considered a rustling crime under the Federal Penal Code; and 4) Recognizing Honey's Nutritional Value: The law also aims to establish honey as a perfect food, recognizing its exceptional nutritional properties. It advocates for honey to be considered an essential component of a balanced diet to safeguard the health of society. Furthermore, this law contains provisions to enhance the regulation and support of apiculture, including the rights and obligations of beekeepers; it creates the National Council of the Beekeeping Product System, outlines the responsibilities and attributions of relevant authorities, and sets forth specific standards, reporting procedures, and licensing requirements for various aspects of beekeeping, including the establishment of apiaries, the movement of hives or their products, and other relevant activities. | Statute | |
| IA - Fur, traps - Chapter 481A. Wildlife Conservation. | I. C. A. § 481A.92 | IA ST § 481A.92 | A person cannot use colony traps for fur-bearing animals except for muskrats. Traps must be labeled with the user's name and address, and must be checked at least once every twenty-four hours, unless completely submerged under water. A person cannot use instruments such as chemicals or explosives to remove fur-bearing animals from their dens. | Statute |
| Jurewicz v. U.S. Dept. of Agriculture | 891 F.Supp.2d 147 (D.D.C, 2012) | 2012 WL 4130515 (D.D.C, 2012) |
Using the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), the United States Humane Society requested that the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) disclose a certain Animal Welfare Act form. Arguing that two FOIA exemptions prevented the USDA from releasing certain information on this form (the number of dogs that they buy and sell each year and their annual revenue from dog sales), three Missouri dog breeders and dealers sought to prevent this information’s disclosure. After finding that the public interests in disclosing the information outweighed the privacy concerns for the breeders, the district court granted the USDA's and the U.S. Humane Society's motion for summary judgment.
|
Case |
| CA - Docking - § 597n. Docked horses; prohibition of docking; importation or use of unregistered animals | West's Ann. Cal. Penal Code § 597n | CA PENAL § 597n | This law was amended in 2009 to prohibit the docking or cutting of the solid part of any horse or cattle. Violation of the law constitutes a misdemeanor. The new law does provide an exclusion for the docking of any cattle's tail in an emergency for the purpose of saving the cattle's life or relieving the cattle's pain provided that the emergency treatment is performed consistent with the Veterinary Medicine Practice Act. | Statute |
| Ecuador - Stray animals - Ley 67, 2006 | Ley 67, 2006, Ecuador | The excerpt from the organic law for health corresponds to the treatment of companion and stray animals. Article 123 establishes that domestic animal owners must vaccinate their animals against rabies and other diseases the health authority considers a risk to human health. Owners are also responsible for keeping their animals in conditions that do not risk human health and environmental hygiene. Under the same article, municipalities, in coordination with the health authority, control and handle stray animals. | Statute | |
| People v. Johnson | 889 N.W.2d 513 (2016), appeal denied, 500 Mich. 951, 891 N.W.2d 231 (2017) | 315 Mich. App. 163, 2016 WL 1576933 (Mich. App. Apr. 19, 2016) | This case involves challenges to the courtroom procedure of allowing a witness to be accompanied on the witness stand by a support animal. Defendant Johnson appealed his convictions of criminal sexual assault after he was convicted of assaulting his six-year-old niece. During Defendant's trial, a black Labrador retriever was permitted, to accompany the six-year-old victim to the witness stand. On appeal, the Defendant first argued that his trial counsel was ineffective for failing to object to the use of a support animal because MCL 600.2163a(4) only allows a support person. The Court of Appeals of Michigan stated that the trial court had the inherent authority to utilize support animals. Secondly, the Defendant argued that trial counsel should have objected to the notice of a support person on the basis that allowing the witnesses to testify accompanied by the support animal violated his constitutional right to due process. The Court of Appeals stated that there is no indication that the support dog used was visible to the jury, or that he barked, growled, or otherwise interrupted the proceedings. Therefore, the objection was meritless. Next, the Defendant argued that his counsel was ineffective for failing to request various procedural protections if the support animal was used. The Court of Appeals stated that the use of a support dog did not implicate the Confrontation Clause; the presence of the dog did not affect the witnesses' competency to testify or affect the oath given to the witnesses; the witnesses were still subject to cross-examination; and the trier of fact was still afforded the unfettered opportunity to observe the witnesses' demeanor. Finally, the Defendant argued that a limiting instruction should have been provided to the jury when the support animal was utilized and this rendered his counsel ineffective. The Court of Appeals stated, that there are no Michigan jury instructions addressing the use of a support animal. Counsel was then not ineffective in failing to ask for an instruction that does not yet exist in Michigan. The Court of Appeals affirmed the defendant's convictions and sentence and remanded. | Case |
| Sixth Angel Shepherd Rescue Inc. v. Pennsylvania SPCA | 2011 WL 605697 (2011) (Slip Copy) |
Plaintiff dog rescue received a shipment of dogs from a North Carolina animal shelter. Joseph Loughlin, a warden from the Pennsylvania Dog Law Enforcement Bureau, and officials from the Pennsylvania SPCA (“PSPCA”) seized the dogs. Plaintiff filed suit seeking a court order for the return of the dogs. Loughlin mailed to Plaintiff’s counsel a citation for violating the Pennsylvania Dog Law. Plaintiff filed this action, alleging malicious prosecution, abuse of process, a claim that both §§ 459-209(b) and 459-603(c) are unconstitutional, and damages for defamation and “derogatory publication.” The court dismissed all claims except for those relating to the Pennsylvania Dog Law, The court held that the as-applied dormant Commerce Clause challenges to §§ 459-209(b) and 459-603(c) were not ripe and moot, respectively. The First Amendment challenge to § 459-603(c) failed because the statute was not unconstitutionally vague. |
Case | |
| US - AWA - 2014 Public Law113-79 | 2014 PL 113-79 | The 2014 amendments to the Animal Welfare Act allows the Secretary of agriculture to define de minimis, as well as several grammatical changes. The public law also provides the prohibits anyone from allowing a person who has not attained the age of 16 from attending an animal fighting venture. | Statute | |
| US - Lacey Act - Conspiracy Statute | 18 USC § 371 | If two or more persons conspire either to commit any offense against the United States, or to defraud the United States, or any agency thereof in any manner or for any purpose, and one or more of such persons do any act to effect the object of the conspiracy, each shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than five years, or both. If, however, the offense, the commission of which is the object of the conspiracy, is a misdemeanor only, the punishment for such conspiracy shall not exceed the maximum punishment provided for such misdemeanor. | Statute | |
| AL - Hunting - Article 19. Hunting of Native Game Animals and Certain Nonindigenous Animals. | Ala. Code 1975 § 9-11-500 - 505 | AL ST § 9-11-500 to 505 | This Alabama statute makes it unlawful to hunt or kill any species of nonindigenous animals for a fee or for recreation. This section does not apply to feral swine, nuisance animals, or to any nonindigenous animal lawfully brought into this state prior to 2006. | Statute |