Results
| Title | Citation | Alternate Citation | Agency Citation | Summary | Type |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| South Africa - Biodiversity - National Environmental Management | No. 10 of 2004: National Environmental Management: Biodiversity Act, 2004. | The objectives of this Act are, within the framework of the National Environmental Management Act, to provide for the management and conservation of biological diversity within the Republic and of the components of such biological diversity; to provide for the use of indigenous biological resources in a sustainable manner; and to provide for the fair and equitable sharing among stakeholders of benefits arising from bioprosgecting involving indigenous biological resources. Other objecitves of this Act are to give effect to ratified international agreements relating to biodiversity which are binding on the Republic; to provide for co-operative governance in biodiversity management and conservation; and to provide for a South African National Biodiversity Institute to assist in achieving the objectives of this Act. | Statute | ||
| Friedman v. Souther California Permanente Medical Group |
Amicus Curae brief arguing for veganism to be viewed as a religion in wrongful termination case. |
Pleading | |||
| People v. Beauvil | 2008 WL 2685893; 872 N.Y.S.2d 692 (Table), (N.Y.Just.Ct.,2008) | 20 Misc.3d 1116(A); 2008 WL 2685893; 2008 N.Y. Slip Op. 51370(U) |
This New York case came before this Court after the District Attorney refused to prosecute the case. The complaintant alleged that on April 16, 2008, he was walking down a public sidewalk when a loose dog, later identified as belonging to the defendants, ran up to and bit the complainant on the hand. Police were contacted and a complaint was made to the Village of Westbury Attorney who then advised the complainant to file a formal complaint with the Nassau County District Attorney's office. The District Attorney's office declined to prosecute and instead suggested that the Village handle the matter. This Court held that it has no jurisdiction to hear the misdemeanor charge stemming from the violation of Agriculture & Markets Law § 121 (but then did list the other avenues available for the complaintant). This Court, sua sponte, also held that the Agriculture & Markets Law § 121, as applied to Nassau County Village Justice Courts, is unconstitutional. This was due to the fact that Village Courts have no jurisdiction (or ability, as pointed out by the court) to hear misdemeanors. |
Case | |
| IN - Animal Sacrifice - THE KARNATAKA PREVENTION OF ANIMAL SACRIFICES ACT, 1959 | 3 of 1960 | The law, specific to the southern state of Karnataka, prohibits animal and bird sacrifices in places of public religious worship. Persons are prohibited from performing, organizing, or participating in animal sacrifices—they are criminal offences carrying a fine or imprisonment. Police officers not below the rank of a sub-inspector may arrest persons committing an offence under this Act without a warrant. | Statute | ||
| US - AWA - House Debate 1966 AWA | House Resolution 821 |
This the debate in the House of Representatives for the initial adoption of the Animal Welfare Act in 1966. For discussion of Act see, Overview |
Administrative | ||
| Topical Introductions | Topical introductions contain a collection of legal materials (cases, laws, and articles) for a specific topic with a short summary and detailed legal analysis. Topics range from dog issues (like dog bite laws, lost dogs, custody issues involving pets in divorce) to complex federal laws such as the U.S. Endangered Species Act or the Animal Welfare Act. | Basic page | |||
| CO - Commerce City - Breed - Chapter 4 - ANIMAL CODE. ARTICLE I. - GENERAL PROVISIONS. | COMMERCE CITY, CO., REVISED MUNICIPAL CODE §§ 4-1000 - 4-1005 (2011) |
Commerce City defines a pit bull or pit bull terrier as any dog that is an American pit bull terrier, American Staffordshire terrier, Staffordshire bull terrier, any dog displaying the majority of physical traits of any one (1) or more of the above breeds or any dog exhibiting those distinguishing characteristics that substantially conform to the standards established by the American Kennel Club (A.K.C.) or United Kennel Club (U.K.C.) for any of the above breeds. Commerce City has banned pit bulls with the exception of pit bulls who were in the city prior to November 2005. |
Local Ordinance | ||
| Liberty Humane Soc., Inc. v. Jacobs | Not Reported in A.2d, 2008 WL 2491961 (N.J.Super.A.D.) | This case concerns the authority of the Department of Health to revoke certifications of animal control officers who willfully contravened the state law on impounding dogs. The court found that “[s] ince the Department acknowledged that it is charged with revoking certifications of animal control off icers when those officers pose ‘ a threat to the health and safety’ of the community, it should follow that allegations of officers willfully and illegally taking a dog from its owner and falsifying records to claim it a stray so as to expose it to adoption by another or euthanasia calls for the Department to take action. ” It would be both arbitrary and capricious for the Department to ignore its duty to determine if revocation of certification is required. | Case | ||
| Chalmers v. Diwell | 74 LGR 173 |
Defendant was an exporter of pet birds. He kept birds at a premises in the course of his business. Usually the birds remained on the premises for less than 48 hours before continuing their journey to their purchasers but on occasion birds had remained on the premises for up to 12 days. A magistrates' court acquitted him of keeping a pet shop without a licence (contrary to Pet Animals Act 1951, s.1). Prosecutor appealed. Result: appeal allowed. Held: even though the premises was being used as no more than a holding center, the defendant was carrying on from that premises a business of selling pets and the premises therefore required a pet shop license. |
Case | ||
| Bhogaita v. Altamonte Heights Condominium Assn. | 765 F.3d 1277 (11th Cir., 2014) | 2014 WL 4215853 (11th Cir., 2014) | Appellee Ajit Bhogaita, who suffers from post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), filed suit against Appellant Altamonte Heights Condominium Association, Inc. ("Association") for violating the disability provisions of the Federal and Florida Fair Housing Acts, 42 U.S.C. § 3604(f)(3)(b) (“FHA”) and the Florida Fair Housing Act, when it enforced its pet weight policy and demanded Bhogaita remove his emotional support dog from his condominium. The jury awarded Bhogaita $5,000 in damages, and the district court awarded Bhogaita more than $100,000 in attorneys' fees. This court affirmed that decision finding that there was evidence that the Association constructively denied appellee's requested accommodation. In fact, the court opined, "Neither Bhogaita's silence in the face of requests for information the Association already had nor his failure to provide information irrelevant to the Association's determination can support an inference that the Association's delay reflected an attempt at meaningful review." | Case |