Results
Displaying 6631 - 6638 of 6638
| Title | Citation | Alternate Citation | Summary | Type |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| IN - Liens - 32-33-8-1 Feed and care bestowed upon livestock; mechanic's and tradesman lien | I.C. 32-33-8-1 | Ind. Code Ann. § 32-33-8-1 (West) | This statute allows the keeper of a livery stable or any person engaged in feeding horses, cattle, hogs, and other livestock to place a lien on any of the animals that he or she cares for. | Statute |
| Center for Biological Diversity, Defenders of Wildlife v. Kelly | --- F.Supp.3d ----, 2015 WL 1293338 (D. Idaho 2015) | Plaintiffs brought an action against the Defendants, challenging the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (“FWS”)'s November 28, 2012 Final Rule designating 30,010 acres in Idaho and Washington as critical habitat for the southern Selkirk Mountains population of woodland caribou under the Endangered Species Act (“ESA”). Specifically, plaintiffs alleged (1) that the Final Rule's critical habitat designation was arbitrary and capricious because the Defendants failed to explain how the limited amount of critical habitat designated was sufficient to recover this population of caribou and (2) that Defendants failed to provide public notice and comment on the substantially revised critical habitat designation before issuing the Final Rule. Defendants and Intervenors argued that the Final Rule satisfied the requirements of the ESA and the Administrative Procedures Act ("APA").While the district court stated that the Final Rule's analysis seemed reasonably based on the best available science, it refused to make a conclusive determination on the arbitrary and capricious issue because procedural requirements necessitated a further public review and comment period. The court therefore found the error in this case was a procedural one resulting from the FWS failing to provide a period of public review and comment on the Final Rule's critical change in reasoning. The Court therefore remanded this matter to the FWS to cure the procedural error by affording the necessary public comment period and to consider anew the critical habitat designation in light of those comments. | Case | |
| ID - Assistance Animal - Assistance Animal/Guide Dog Laws | I.C. §§ 18-5811 - 5812B; I.C. §§ 56-701 - 708 | ID ST § 18-5811 - 5812B; ID ST § 56-701 - 708 | The following statutes comprise the state's relevant assistance animal and guide dog laws. | Statute |
| CA - Euthanasia - § 597v. Newborn dog or cat; methods of killing | West's Ann. Cal. Penal Code § 597v | CA PENAL § 597v | The statute prohibits the killing of a newborn dog or cat whose eyes have not yet opened by any other method than by the use of chloroform vapor or by inoculation of barbiturates. | Statute |
| Animal Legal Defense Fund Boston, Inc. v. Provimi Veal Corp. | 626 F.Supp. 278 (D.Mass.,1986) |
District Court found that federal law preempts Massachusetts's consumer protection statute that requires retailers to inform consumers of relevant information, the disclosure of which may have influenced the buyer or prospective buyer not to enter into the transaction. The District Court also held that the Animal Legal Defense Fund could not enforce a cruelty to animals claim because it involves criminal statutes that only public prosecutors and legislatively-sanctioned groups may enforce. |
Case | |
| CÓDIGO PENAL PARA EL ESTADO LIBRE Y SOBERANO DE TLAXCALA | CÓDIGO PENAL PARA EL ESTADO LIBRE Y SOBERANO DE TLAXCALA | In 2022, Decreto No. 160 modified the Criminal Code by adding Title XX, “Of the Crimes Committed Against Animals.” it has only one title: “Crimes Against the Life, Integrity, and Dignity of Animals,” which comprises articles 435, 436, 437, 438, 439, 440, 441, and 442. Article 435 considers acts of mistreatment and animal cruelty: unjustifiably causing the death of an animal; killing an animal using methods other than those established in official Mexican standards or depriving an animal of life using any means that causes excessive or unnecessary suffering or prolongs its agony; any mutilation, injury, or permanent mark for nonmedical purposes; inflicting injuries that endanger the life of an animal, that generate permanent partial or total disability, that reduce any of its faculties, or that affect the normal functioning of an organ or member; causing the ingestion or application of any toxic substance or object that endangers the life of an animal or causes its death; depriving an animal of air, light, food, water, space, mobility, medical care, or adequate shelter appropriate to its species, with the purpose of causing harm; abandoning an animal or neglecting it for prolonged periods that compromise its well-being; or inciting animals to attack each other or being neglectful when the animals' aggressiveness or physical power could potentially result in harm or death. Under this modification, animal cruelty is punishable with imprisonment ranging from six months to five years. If the injuries inflicted on the animal put the animal's life at risk, the punishment will be increased by half. If the animal dies as a result of the cruel behavior, the penalty will imprisonment from two to four years, and if the methods utilized caused excessive or unnecessary suffering or prologue the animal’s agony, the punishment will be increased by half. Sexual conduct with vertebrate animals is punishable with jail time ranging from six months to two years. Dog fighting is also proscribed as a criminal offense. Lastly, under Article 497, certain exemptions apply, such as the death of an animal resulting from cultural activities, the death or mutilation of an animal considered a pest, justified death or mutilation of an animal under the care and supervision of a specialist, marking or shoeing of vertebrate animals for the purpose of distinguishing livestock, and the slaughter of animals for human consumption in accordance with Norm NOM-033-SAG/ZOO-2014. With this amendment, the state takes a step toward enhancing animal protection. The next steps should focus on implementing this law, Investing in training government employees, and promoting awareness and education about animal cruelty laws and their implications within the state. Through these efforts, trust in a government capable of conducting investigations into animal cruelty and enforcing sanctions will encourage citizens to report such cases. | Statute | |
| Georgia Aquarium v. Pritzker | Case 1:13-cv-03241-AT (2015) | In this case, the District Court for the Northern District of Georgia denied the Georgia Aquarium’s application for a permit under the Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA) to import 18 beluga whales from Russia’s Sea of Okhotsk for public display. The Aquarium challenged the defendant National Marine Fisheries Service's (NMFS) decision to deny a permit to import the beluga whales as arbitrary and capricious under the Administrative Procedures Act (APA). The Court found that defendant National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) was correct in following the statutory mandate of the MMPA after it found that the Sakhalin-Amur stock of the whales is likely declining and is experiencing adverse impacts in addition to Russian live-capture operations. Further, some of the beluga whales destined for the import were potentially young enough to still be nursing and dependent upon their mothers. | Case | |
| US - Rodent - Nutria Eradication and Control Act of 2003 | 2004 P.L. 108-16; 2004 P.L. 105-322 |
Nutria are large, semi-aquatic rodents that are native to South America and have invaded the marshland of certain U.S. states. There are no natural predators to control nutria, no market for their fur, and private trappers have failed to keep pace with the animals' ability to reproduce. P.L. 108-16 of 2003 and P.L. 105-322 of 1998 authorizes the Secretary of the Interior to provide financial assistance to the States of Maryland and Louisiana for a program to implement measures to: (1)eradicate nutria in Maryland; (2)eradicate or control nutria in Louisiana and other States; and (3) restore marshland damaged by nutria. |
Statute |