Results
Displaying 71 - 80 of 6638
| Title | Citation | Alternate Citation | Agency Citation | Summary | Type |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Stanford Journal of Animal Law & Policy (SJALP) | The Journal of Animal Law & Policy was founded in August 2007 to provide a high-quality, widely accessible forum for the publication and discussion of animal law scholarship. The Journal of Animal Law and Policy went on hiatus beginning Fall 2014. The SJALP website states that it will continue to have the website accessible. For more on the journal, go to the SJALP web page. | Policy | |||
| FL - Horse Slaughter - Chapter 828. Animals: Cruelty; Sales; Animal Enterprise Protection. | West's F. S. A. § 828.125 | FL ST § 828.125 | Florida Governor Charlie Crist signed this amendment into law on May 17, 2010 making it a second-degree felony for any person to willfully and unlawfully, by any means whatsoever, kill, maim, mutilate, or cause great bodily harm or permanent breeding disability to any animal of the genus Equus (horse). Any person who commits a violation of this subsection shall be sentenced to a minimum mandatory fine of $3,500 and a minimum mandatory period of incarceration of 1 year. | Statute | |
| CA - Pet Store - Chapter 9. Pet Store Animal Care Act | West's Ann. Cal. Health & Safety Code § 122350 - 122361 | CA HLTH & S § 122350 - 122361 | This law requires pet store operators to maintain the facility in good repair, provide proper care to animals, and clean grooming areas daily. Primary enclosures must be structurally sound, provide adequate space, be water-proof, and protect from injury. The law mandates that dogs and cats must be over eight weeks of age and weaned prior to sale. Pet store operators must ensure that veterinary records are documented in writing. Violations may be considered an infraction or a misdemeanor. A new law, effective January 1, 2019, states that a pet store operator shall not sell a live dog, cat, or rabbit in a pet store unless the animal was obtained from a public animal control agency or shelter, society for the prevention of cruelty to animals shelter, humane society shelter, or rescue group that is in a cooperative agreement with at least one private or public shelter. Violation is a civil penalty with a fine of up to $500. | Statute | |
| WA - Rabies - 246-100-197. Rabies--Measures to prevent human disease. | WA ADC 246-100-197 | WAC 246-100-197 | Among other provisions concerning rabies, this Washington regulation states that an owner of a dog, cat, or ferret shall have it vaccinated and revaccinated against rabies following veterinary and USDA-licensed rabies vaccine manufacturer instructions. | Administrative | |
| VT - Hunting, contest - § 4716. Coyote-hunting competitions; prohibition | 10 V.S.A. § 4716 | VT ST T. 10 § 4716 | This Vermont law, effective January 1, 2019, prohibits coyote-hunting competitions in the state. A “coyote-hunting competition” means a contest in which people compete in the capturing or taking of coyotes for a prize. Violation incurs a fine of $400 - $1,000 for a first offense. A second or subsequent conviction results in a fine of not more than $4,000.00 nor less than $2,000.00. | Statute | |
| United States v. Sandia | 188 F.3d 1215 (10th Cir 1999) |
This case was vacated by the Tenth Circuit in the Hardman order. Defendant in this case sold golden eagle skins to undercover agents in New Mexico. On appeal, defendant contended that the district court failed to consider the facts under a RFRA analysis. The Tenth Circuit disagreed, finding that defendant never claimed that his sale of eagle parts was for religious purposes and that the sale of eagle parts negates a claim of religious infringement on appeal. For further discussion on religious challenges to the BGEPA, see Detailed Discussion. |
Case | ||
| Jackson v. Mateus | 70 P.3d 78 (Utah 2003) | Plaintiff filed suit against the defendant after she was bitten by the defendant’s cat and required medical attention as a result of the bite. Plaintiff found the defendant’s cat on her property and mistakenly started petting the cat, thinking that it was one of her own cats. As plaintiff was petting the cat, it bit her causing her injury. Plaintiff filed a negligence claim against defendant for not restraining the cat. The court held in favor of the defendant because the court found that this incident was not foreseeable and because it was not foreseeable, the defendant did not owe a duty to restrain the animal under the common law, municipal law, or state law. | Case | ||
| Hulsizer v. Labor Day Committee, Inc. | 734 A.2d 848 (Pa.,1999) | 557 Pa. 467 (Pa.,1999) |
This Pennsylvania case involves an appeal by allowance from orders of Superior Court which affirmed an order of the Court of Common Pleas of Schuylkill County and imposed counsel fees and costs upon the appellants, Clayton Hulsizer and the Pennsylvania Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (PSPCA). Hulsizer, an agent of the PSPCA, filed this action in equity seeking injunctive and declaratory relief against the appellee, Labor Day Committee, Inc., for their role in conducting an annual pigeon shoot. Hulsizer sought to have appellee enjoined from holding the shoot, alleging that it violates the cruelty to animals statute. At issue is whether Hulsizer has standing to bring an enforcement action in Schuylkill County. This court found no inconsistency in reading Section 501 and the HSPOEA (Humane Society Police Officer Enforcement Act) together as statutes that are in pari materia. Since the HSPOEA does not limit the jurisdiction of humane society police officers by requiring them to apply separately to the courts of common pleas in every county in Pennsylvania, the officer had standing to bring an enforcement action. The lower court's orders were reversed.
|
Case | |
| AZ - Municipalities - Dog Regulations | A.R.S. § 9-240 | AZ ST § 9-240 | This Arizona statute allows common councils to regulate dogs running at large. | Statute | |
| US - Assistance animals, housing - Subpart D. Prohibition Against Discrimination Because of Handicap. | 24 C.F.R. § 100.201 - 205 | These regulations set out the definitions relating to housing discrimination under the Federal Fair Housing Act. | Administrative |