Results
| Title | Citation | Alternate Citation | Summary | Type |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Argentina - Slaughter - Ley 18.819, 1970 | LEY N° 18.819 | This law contains the provisions for the procedures for the slaughter of animals. More specifically the slaughter of animals of the bovine, equine, ovine, porcine and caprine species. However, Article 2 establishes that executive power may extend these provisions to the slaughter of birds, rabbits, and other minor species. Slaughterhouses and meat packing plants in Argentina must comply with the desensitization requirements and procedures established by the executive power. This law prohibits the use of the clubs in slaughtering. The veterinary inspection services of the national and of the provincial or municipal administrations are the control entities for the compliance of this law. The Secretary of State for Agriculture and Livestock is the entity that imposes sanctions to establishments subject to national veterinary inspection and those that violate these provisions. | Statute | |
| Ronald Hane and Laurie Simerson, plaintiffs v. Maurice James and Mary James, defendants |
This is a copy of a Washington arbitration award that awarded general and special damages. |
Pleading | ||
| Syracuse Book 1 Symposium on Animal Law |
Syracuse Law Review
|
Policy | ||
| U.S. v. McDougall | 25 F.Supp.2d 85 (N.D.N.Y. 1998) |
Defendants Goodfriend and Benney, commercial fishermen licensed pursuant to the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation ("DEC"), are charged with catching and failing to return substantial quantities of eel and walleye from Lake Ontario and New York waters in violation of New York law that prohibits commerce in these fish because of health and conservation concerns. Aware of the ban prohibiting the sale of eel and walleye taken from these waters, Goodfriend and Benney subsequently sold the eel and walleye to a host of fish wholesalers and retailers, located within and outside New York. Defendant truck driver's alleged filing of false Canadian customs forms relating to eel and walleye he was transporting from the U.S. to his Canadian employer were violations of the Lacey Act, regardless of whether these acts violated Canadian law. |
Case | |
| Dreyer v. Cyriacks | 112 Cal.App. 279 (1931) | 297 P. 35 (1931) | Plaintiffs brought action against Defendant for damages after Defendant shot and killed Plaintiffs’ dog. The Trial Court set aside a jury verdict granting Plaintiffs $100,000 in actual and $25,000 in punitive damages, on the ground that the verdict was excessive. On appeal, the District Court of Appeal, First District, Division 1, California, affirmed the Trial Court decision, finding that the Trial Court was justified in holding that both the actual and punitive damages awards were grossly excessive, given the circumstances under which the incident occurred. In making its decision, the Court of Appeal pointed out that, although this particular dog had been in the motion picture industry, dogs are nonetheless considered property, and as such, are to be ascertained in the same manner as other property, and not in the same manner as human life. | Case |
| Canada - P.E.I. Statutes - Companion Animal Protection Act | CHAPTER A-11.2 | This set of laws comprises the Prince Edward Island (PEI) Companion Animal Protection Act. The act outlines the duties of animal owners including a duty to provide animals with adequate food, water, and shelter and access to veterinary care when injured or ill. Further, under the act, no person shall torture an animal or inflict on or cause unnecessary pain or suffering to an animal. Additionally, no person shall perform, or permit to be performed, cosmetic surgery on an animal unless medically necessary (as defined). No person shall operate a companion animal retail store unless the person holds a license issued by the Director for that purpose. The disposition of seized animals is described in the law as well as appointment of humane agents. A person found to be violating the act is subject to a fine of not less than $500 and not more than $10,000, and/or imprisonment for a term of not more than six months, with increasing fines and incarceration terms for subsequent offences. | Statute | |
| OH - Cincinnati - Breed - § 701-6. - Possession of a Dangerous or Vicious Dog Prohibited. | CINCINNATI, OH., MUNICIPAL CODE §§ 701-6 - 701-10 (1999) |
The municipal code of Cincinnati, Ohio makes it illegal to own, possess, breed, sell or transfer ownership of a pit bull terrier. The pit bull ban applies to dogs that were not registered prior to November 1, 2003. The exempted dogs are permitted to remain within the city as long as the owner stays in compliance with the laws. The statutes also require that dangerous dogs be micro-chipped and owners are required to maintain liability insurance of at least $100,000 in case someone is injured or killed by a vicious dog. |
Local Ordinance | |
| Rivero v. Humane Soc. of Fayette County | Slip Copy, 2009 WL 18704 (W.D.Pa.) | Plaintiffs brought action against Defendants under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging Defendants violated their First and Fourth Amendment rights under the United States Constitution after Defendant dog control officers removed Plaintiffs’ dog from their home during an investigation into a report of a dead dog. The United States District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania granted Defendant Township’s motion for partial summary judgment, finding that Plaintiffs’ allegations, standing alone, do not state a claim against Defendant-Township, and that Plaintiffs failed to provide any factual support for their state law claims. | Case | |
| Anderson v. Creighton | 483 US 635 (1987) |
Suit was brought against FBI agent seeking damages resulting from warrantless search of residents' home. |
Case | |
| Journal of Animal Law Table of Contents Volume 2 |
Published by the students of Michigan State University College of LawJournal of Animal Law Vol. II (2006)The table of contents is provided below. |
Policy |
