Results
| Title | Citation | Alternate Citation | Agency Citation | Summary | Type | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Wolf time blah blah |
|
Article | ||||
| Switzerland - Cruelty - Swiss Animal Protection Ordinance | Swiss Animal Protection Ordinance 1981 |
Regulations on Animal Welfare based on the Swiss Federal Act on Animal Protection. This piece of legislation is comprehensive, including laws on animal husbandry, animal research, companion animals, breeding, transport and slaughter. |
Statute | |||
| Horton v. U.S. Dept. of Agriculture | 559 Fed.Appx. 527 (6th Cir. 2014) | Petitioner sold dogs and puppies without an Animal Welfare Act (“AWA”) dealer license. An Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”) found the Petitioner violated the AWA and issued a cease and desist order to prevent further violations of the Act and ordered Petitioner to pay $14,430 in civil penalties. Both Petitioner and Respondent, the Administrator of the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (“APHIS”), appealed the ALJ's decision to a judicial officer (“JO”), acting for the Secretary of the Department of Agriculture, who increased the civil penalties amount from $14,430 to $191,200. Petitioner appealed this decision, alleging that (1) the ALJ and JO erred by failing to determine the willfulness of his actions, and (2) the JO improperly applied the Department's criteria for assessing civil penalties. The 6th Circuit found that since the AWA did not contain a willfulness requirement, the JO's failure to make a willfulness determination was not an abuse of discretion. Further, the 6th Circuit held that the JO's factual findings regarding Petitioner's dog sales were supported by substantial evidence. Lastly, the 6th Circuit held the size of the civil penalty assessed against Petitioner was warranted by law. The court denied the petition for review and affirmed the Secretary's Decision and Order. | Case | |||
| KS - Maize - Breed - Pit Bull Ordinance | MAIZE, KS., CITY CODE, §§ 2-401 - 2-420 (2003) |
In Maize, Kansas, it is unlawful to keep, harbor, own or possess any pit bull dog unless the dog was registered on the date of publication of this article. A registered dog is subject to requirements, such as the uses of a leash and muzzle if not confined and “Beware of Dog” signs. Dogs that are a subject of a violation may be seized, impounded, and even killed, if necessary. A violation may result in a $200 to $500 fine and/or imprisonment for up to 30 days, as well as removal of the dog from the city. |
Local Ordinance | |||
| Mexico - Health - Ley Federal de Sanidad Animal | Federal Law of Animal Health | The Federal Law of Animal Health establishes the foundation for diagnosing, preventing, controlling, and eradicating zoonotic diseases. It defines animal welfare and outlines best practices related to livestock, among other things. This law defines animal welfare as the set of activities aimed at providing animals comfort, tranquility, protection, and safety during rearing, maintenance, exploitation, transport, and slaughter. | Statute | |||
| US - Marine Mammals - Feeding Populations of Marine Mammals in the Wild | 1991 WL 301955 (F.R.) | Docket No. 900807-1050 |
NMFS is issuing a final rule that amends the definition of "take" under the Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA) to include feeding marine mammals in the wild, and adds a new definition of "feeding." As a result, feeding dolphins, porpoise, whales, seals and sea lions in the wild will be prohibited unless the feeding is incidental to another activity such as the routine discard of fish bycatch or discharges from processing plants or vessels. |
Administrative | ||
| CITES - Non-Detriment Findings Checklist for CITES |
Quick summary of document to aid CITES Scientific Authorities in make a decision about whether a export of an appendix II species is acceptable by being non-detrimental. |
Treaty | ||||
| New Zealand - Animal Welfare - Code for Layer Hens 2012 | This code sets the minimum standards for the care and management of layer hens under all forms of management used in New Zealand. The purpose of this code is to provide guidance to the owners of layer hens and to persons who are in charge of them about the standards they must achieve in order to meet their obligations under the Animal Welfare Act 1999. | Statute | ||||
| Gregg and Linda Schumacher, and Gregg Schumacher Furs, LLC dba as Schumacher Furs and Outerwear, Plaintiffs v. City of Portland, | In this Opinion, the judge granted the defendants a total of $96,870.85 in attorneys fees. The action stemmed from a lawsuit filed by the Schumachers for $ 6.6 million dollars against the City of Portland and the named defendants seeking damages for alleged illegal protest activities in front of their fur store. The defendants all prevailed on their Motion to Strike. The court observed that awarding of attorney fees is mandatory under Oregon law when a party prevails in an anti-SLAPP (Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation) lawsuit. Thus, the issue at hand was the amount of the attorney fees. The court went through the factors under Oregon law in analyzing the reasonableness of the requested attorney fees. When examining each factor, the court determined that the evidence either was in favor of defendants or was neutral. Notably, the court found that the plaintiffs' claims against defendants were not objectively reasonable because the plaintiffs did not produce any evidence that the prevailing defendants did anything illegal. | Pleading | ||||
| State of Florida v. Peters | 534 So.2d 760 (Fla.App. 3 Dist. 1988). | This is an appeal from an order of the county court invalidating a City of North Miami ordinance regulating the ownership of pit bull dogs. The ordinance in question, City of North Miami Ordinance No. 422.5, regulates the ownership of pit bulls by requiring their owners to carry insurance or furnish other evidence of financial responsibility, register their pit bulls with the City, and confine the dogs indoors or in a locked pen. The court dismissed defendants claims that the ordinance violates equal protection and due process, and that the ordinance's definition of a pit bull is on its face unconstitutionally vague. | Case |
