Results
| Title | Citation | Alternate Citation | Summary | Type |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| CA - Forfeiture - § 599aa. Seizure of fighting animals and birds, paraphernalia, etc.; affidavit of officer; custody of seized p | West's Ann. Cal. Penal Code § 599aa | CA PENAL § 599aa | This section provides for the seizure and forfeiture of all birds, animals, paraphernalia, and any other property which is used in the fighting of birds or animals, the training of birds or animals to fight, or to inflict pain or cruelty on fighting animals. The section outlines the procedures for seizure and forfeiture, including what is to be done with seized animals. | Statute |
| U.S. v. Big Eagle | 684 F.Supp. 241 (D.S.D. 1988) |
On November 23, 1987, defendant, John Terrence Big Eagle, filed a motion to dismiss the indictment in this action on the grounds that this Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction. The indictment charges the defendant with violating the Lacey Act prohibitions against transporting, selling, or acquiring fish taken or possessed in violation of state law or Indian tribal law. The court held that the fishing regulations of the Lower Bule Sioux Tribe were applicable to defendant, a Native American of another tribe, and that this subjected him to prosecution under the Lacey Act. |
Case | |
| In Defense of Animals v. Salazar | 675 F.Supp.2d 89 (D.D.C., 2009) | 2009 WL 4981172 (D.D.C.) | In this case, the Plaintiffs, In Defense of Animals, Craig C. Downer, and Terri Farley, attempted to obtain a preliminary injunction that would stop the defendants, Secretary of the Interior Ken Salazar and representatives of the Interior Department's Bureau of Land Management (“the Bureau”), from implementing a plan to capture or gather approximately 2,700 wild horses located in western Nevada (“gather plan”). The plaintiffs contended that the gather plan had to be set aside pursuant to the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. §§ 551 et seq., because the Bureau did not have the statutory authority to carry out the gather plan, and because the plan did not comply with the terms of the Wild Free-Roaming Horses and Burros Act (“Wild Horse Act”), 16 U.S.C. §§ 1331 et seq. The Court denied the Plaintiffs request for an injunction. | Case |
| Mexico - Cruelty - La Ley General de Equilibrio Ecológico y Protección al Ambiente | General Law of Ecological Balance and Environmental Protection | This law focuses on the sustainable use of the environment and wildlife, the preservation and restoration of the ecosystems. It seeks to protect the national biodiversity and establish and manage protected areas. It establishes that, to protect and sustainably use the flora and fauna, it is important, among other things, to encourage dignified and respectful treatment of animals to avoid cruelty against them. Moreover, it establishes that it is the duty of the federal government, the states, and the municipalities within their respective power to regulate the dignified and respectful treatment of animals (arts 78-79). The regulation of this treatment must be based on the following principles: (1) provide animals with enough water and food in order to keep them healthy and healthy; (2) provide animals with an adequate environment for their rest, movement, and space according to the species; (3) provide animals with adequate veterinary care and, in case of illness, provide prompt veterinary treatment; (4) allow animals to express their natural behavior; and (5) provide animals with adequate treatment and conditions to guarantee their well-being. | Statute | |
| CITES - Party States |
This is the list of Party States that are members of CITES as of July 2004. |
Treaty | ||
| New Zealand - Animal Welfare - Code for Layer Hens 1999 | Code of Animal Welfare No. 18 | In New Zealand, hens are kept under conditions ranging from large commercial enterprises where the birds are totally reliant on humans for all their daily requirements to free-ranging hens which have access to outdoor runs or pasture. Provided those concerned with the day-to-day care of the hens treat them with skill and consideration, their welfare can be safeguarded under a variety of management systems. The code takes account of five basic requirements: freedom from thirst, hunger and malnutrition, the provision of appropriate comfort and shelter, the prevention, or rapid diagnosis and treatment, of injury, disease or infection, freedom from distress, and the ability to display normal patterns of behavior. | Statute | |
| US - AWA - Animal Welfare Act | 7 USC §§ 2131 - 2160; 18 USC § 49 | 7 USCA §§ 2131 - 2160;18 USCA § 49 | The AWA is, in the main, a regulatory law that seeks to control who may possess or sell certain animals and the living conditions (for non-agricultural, domestic animals) under which the animals must be kept. The law provides for criminal penalties, civil penalties and revocation of permits for violations of the AWA. | Statute |
| U.S. v. Tierney (Unpublished) | 38 Fed. Appx. 424 (9th Cir. 2002) (unpub.) | 2002 U.S. App. LEXIS 4635 |
The district court did not err by denying the defendant's proposed entrapment instruction and that Nev. Admin. Code 504.471 is not unconstitutionally vague. He did not present evidence to support his position on either element. Rather than indicating government inducement or lack of predisposition, the evidence showed that the government merely provided the defendant with an opportunity to sell what he was already ready and willing to sell. The court also found the meaning of "wildlife" under Nevada law was not unconstitutionally vague. |
Case |
| State v. Sego | 2006 WL 3734664 (Del.Com.Pl. 2006) (unpublished) |
Fifteen horses were seized by the Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (SPCA) because the animals were in poor condition. The SPCA sent bills to the owners for feeding, upkeep, and veterinary care, but the owners did not pay the bills. After 30 days of nonpayment, the SPCA became the owners of the horses, and the prior owners were not entitled to get the horses back. |
Case | |
| Animal Wellness Action v. Soccer Wearhouse Inc | This complaint filed by plaintiffs Animal Wellness Action and the Center for a Humane Economy asks defendant Soccer Wearhouse Inc. to comply with existing California law. More specifically, it asks defendants to adhere to Penal Code section 653o (hereafter Section 653o), which prohibits the commercial importation, possession with intent to sell, and sale of products made with kangaroo parts. Through investigation and research, plaintiffs contend that defendants openly sell soccer cleats made of kangaroo leather, or “k-leather,” throughout California at defendants' various retail stores. According to plaintiffs, these stores make no attempt to hide the fact that these products contain kangaroo parts. Plaintiffs seek both a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction, as well as a permanent injunction, enjoining defendant Soccer Wearhouse Inc. and its representatives, co-conspirators, and all persons acting in concert with defendant or on its behalf, from selling or offering for sale kangaroo leather shoes. | Pleading |