Results
| Title | Citation | Alternate Citation | Agency Citation | Summary | Type |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| The Future of Animal Law |
The Future of Animal Law, David Favre, Professor, Michigan State University College of Law, Edward Elgar Publishing (2021).
|
Policy | |||
| US - Assistance animals, housing - Part 8. Nondiscrimination Based on Handicap | 24 C.F.R. § 8.1 to .6 | The purpose of this part is to effectuate section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as amended (29 U.S.C 794), to the end that no otherwise qualified individual with handicaps in the United States shall, solely by reason of his or her handicap, be excluded from the participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance from the Department of Housing and Urban Development. | Administrative | ||
| American Horse Protection Ass'n v. U. S. Dept. of Interior | 551 F.2d 342 (C.A.D.C. 1977) |
Appellants (American Horse Protection Association and a member of the joint advisory board created under the Act) initiated an action in the District Court against the Dept. of the Interior, alleging violations of the Wild Free-Roaming Horses and Burros Act and other federal statutes in connection with a roundup of horses on federal lands. In January and February of 1973, there was a roundup of horses (said by appellants to be wild and free-roaming) on public lands near Howe, Idaho. The District Court for the District of Columbia, granted summary judgment for appellees, rejecting appellants' contention that the Brand Inspector lacked authority under the Act to determine ownership conclusively. On appeal, the Court of Appeals found the District Court's construction of Section 5 unacceptable. This Court did not believe that Congress intended to abdicate to state officials final determinations under Section 5 on ownership of wild free-roaming horses and burros on federal lands. Thus, the Court held that final role is reserved to the Federal Government. The judgment appealed from was reversed, and the case was remanded to the District Court.
|
Case | ||
| UT - Sterilization - Animal Welfare Act. Part 2. Animal Shelter Pet Sterilization Act | U.C.A. 1953 § 11-46-201 - 208 | UT ST § 11-46-201 - 208 | Under this Utah act, a shelter may not transfer an unsterilized animal for adoption unless the shelter has a written agreement in which the recipient agrees to have the animal sterilized and gives the shelter a sterilization deposit. If a recipient fails to comply with the agreement, the animal may be seized and impounded, and the recipient forfeits the deposit. A first violation may result in a civil penalty of $250. | Statute | |
| AU - Companion Animals - Domestic Animals Act 1994 (VIC) | Domestic Animals Act 1994 - No. 81 of 1994 | The purpose of the Domestic Animals Act is to promote animal welfare, responsible pet ownership and to protect the environment. The legislation provides for cat and dog identification and enables Municipal Councils to deal effectively with feral, straying and nuisance populations. | Statute | ||
| ID - Idaho Falls - Title 1: General Provisions & Title 5: Criminal Code (Chapter 9: Animals) | City Code of the City of Idaho Falls §§ 1-3-5, 5-1-3, 5-9-3 to 5-9-4 |
In Idaho Falls, Idaho, any person who causes an animal to fight for amusement, or for gain, or to worry or injure each other; and any person who permits the same to be done on any premises under his charge or control; and any person who aids, abets or is present as a spectator is guilty of a misdemeanor. Additionally, any person who owns, possesses, keeps or trains any bird or animal, with the intent that such bird or animal engage in an exhibition of fighting, or any person who is present at any place, building or tenement, where preparations are being made for an exhibition of fighting of birds or animals, with the intent to be present at such exhibition, is guilty of a misdemeanor. Any person violating these provisions may be punished by imprisonment for a term not exceeding six (6) months, or by a fine not exceeding one thousand dollars ($1,000), or by both. |
Local Ordinance | ||
| U.S. v. Williams | 898 F.2d 727 (9th Cir. 1990) |
Kenneth Ray Williams appealed his conviction for the illegal hunting of moose in violation of the Lacey Act. Williams claimed that his conviction should be overturned because the government failed to establish the validity of use of the wildlife law against a tribe member. The United States argued that there is no need for the government to establish the validity of the law's use against a tribe member. The court affirmed the conviction and held that the government must establish the validity of the use of wildlife laws against tribe members but that similar laws enacted by the tribe can establish this validity. |
Case | ||
| CA - Historical - 1872: Cruelty to Animals | Enacted February 14, 1872 (almost identical with Field's Draft, Section 699), and then read: "Every person who maliciously kills, maims, or wounds an animal, the property of another, or who maliciously and cruelly beats, tortures, or injures any animal, whether belonging to himself or another, is guilty of a misdemeanor." | Historical | |||
| WV - Pet Trust - § 44D-4-408. Trust for care of animal | W. Va. Code, § 44D-1-110; W. Va. Code, § 44D-4-408; W. Va. Code, § 44D-4-409 | WV ST § 44D-1-110; WV ST § 44D-4-408; WV ST § 44D-4-409 | These West Virginia statutes regulate trusts for the care of animals. A pet trust may be created to provide for the care of an animal alive during the grantor's lifetime. The trust terminates upon the death of the animal. Property of a trust may be applied only to its intended use. A trust may be enforced by a person appointed in the terms of the trust instrument or by a person appointed by the court. | Statute | |
| Supreme Beef Processors, Inc. v. U.S. Dept. of Agriculture | 275 F.3d 432 (C.A.5 (Tex.),2001) | 51 Fed.R.Serv.3d 1445 (2001) |
The Fifth Circuit United States Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's decision that the Federal Meat Inspection Act focuses on the processes used by a manufacturer and not the product itself, and that the presence of Salmonella bacteria in the meat does not necessarily make a product "adulterated" because the act of the cooking meat normally destroys the bacteria. |
Case |
