Results
| Title | Citation | Alternate Citation | Agency Citation | Summary | Type |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Switzerland - Cruelty - Federal Act and Ordinance on Animal Cruelty | Swiss Animal Protection Ordinance 1981 |
The following is one of two pieces of Swiss legislation concerning animal welfare. It is highly comprehensive and covers all aspects of animal welfare including but not limited to scientific research, farming, treatment of pets, national and international animal sales. This Act clearly states that no one shall unjustifiably expose animals to pain, suffering, physical injury or fear. 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 | ||
| AZ - Leash Laws - Article 6. Animal Control. | A. R. S. § 11-1012 | AZ ST § 11-1012 | This Arizona laws provides generally that no female dog in her breeding season or vicious dog may be allowed to go at large. It further delineates the state's leash requirements for dogs, including during times of rabies quarantines, in state parks, and at public schools. Exceptions under the law include the training of livestock dogs and hunting dogs, among others. | Statute | |
| US - Marine Mammals - Taking and Importing Marine Mammals; Taking Marine Mammals Incidental | 2001 WL 929542 (F.R.) | FR Doc. 01-20647 (2001) |
NMFS, upon application from the University of California San Diego, Scripps Institution of Oceanography (Scripps), is issuing regulations to govern the unintentional take of a small number of marine mammals incidental to the continued operation of a low frequency (LF) sound source by Scripps. |
Administrative | |
| Illinois 1869: Cruelty to Animals Statute | 1869 Ill. Laws 3 | Historical Law: The first part of this Statute details the incorporation of the Illinois Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals. The second part of the statute describes various laws concerning the treatment of animals. | Statute | ||
| IN - Farriers - PREVENTION OF CRUELTY TO ANIMALS (LICENSING OF FARRIERS) RULES, 1965 | Licensing of Farriers Rules, 1965 | The Rules, drafted under Section 38(2) of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960, regulate farriers (persons who attach shoes to hooves of animals). It is mandatory for farriers to obtain a license. | Statute | ||
| Hendricks v. Barlow | 656 N.E.2d 481 (Ind. 1995) | 656 N.E.2d 481 (Ind. 1995) |
Landowners were held in violation of a zoning regulation, established under a Hendricks County ordinance, which forbade having wild animals residing on residential property. The trial court held that the county could not pass such a law, since it would be preempted by state and federal law. However, on appeal, this Court found that federal (the AWA) and state law did not preempt the County from passing such ordinances. The trial court erroneously attempted to interpret the law when it was not ambiguous, and, thus, preemption by state and federal law should not have been found. Thus, the zoning regulation was permitted. |
Case | |
| Am. Anti-Vivisection Soc'y et. al. v. USDA et. al. | 946 F.3d 615 (D.C. Cir. 2020) | Congress passed the Animal Welfare Act (“AWA”) in 1966 to insure that animals intended for use in research facilities, for exhibition purposes, or for use as pets were provided humane care and treatment. Initially the definition of the word “animal” excluded birds according to the USDA. In 2002, Congress amended the AWA to make it known that birds were to be protected as well. The USDA promised to publish a proposed rule for public comment once it determined how to best regulate birds and adopt appropriate standards. Eighteen years later, the USDA has yet to issue any standards regarding birds. The American Anti-Vivisection Society and the Avian Welfare Coalition sued to compel the USDA to either issue bird-specific standards or to apply its general standards to birds. These animal-rights groups argued that the USDA’s utter failure to promulgate any bird specific standards amounted to arbitrary and capricious agency action. Their second argument was that USDA unlawfully withheld and unreasonably delayed action. The district court dismissed their complaint for failure to state a claim to which the animal-rights groups appealed. The Court of Appeals found that the AWA, when it was amended in 2002, required the USDA to issue standards governing the humane treatment, not of animals generally, but of animals as a defined category of creatures including birds not bred for use in research. The USDA failed to take “discrete action” issuing standards to protect birds that the AWA requires it to take. The Court ultimately affirmed the district court as to the arbitrary and capricious claim but reversed and remanded as to the unreasonable delay claim to determine whether the issuance of bird-specific standards has been unreasonably delayed. | Case | ||
| IN RE: ROSIA LEE ENNES | 45 Agric. Dec. 540 (1986) | 1986 WL 74679 (U.S.D.A.) | Civil penalty of $1,000 against unlicensed dealer was appropriate under 7 USCS § 2149(b), and greater penalty could have been requested where although moderate size of kennel suggested modest penalty, selling hundreds of dogs without license over 40-month period was grave violation of Animal Welfare Act, violations were not committed in good faith since dogs were knowingly and intentionally sold without license after receiving 4 warnings, and even though dealer thought mistakenly that Department would not prosecute her for such violations and there was no history of previous violations, the hundreds of violations proven were sufficient to warrant severe sanction. | Case | |
| PH - Cruelty - THE ANIMAL WELFARE ACT OF 1998 | REPUBLIC ACT NO. 8485 |
It is the purpose of this Act to protect and promote the welfare of all animals in the Philippines by supervising and regulating the establishment and operations of all facilities utilized for breeding, maintaining, keeping, treating or training of all animals either as objects of trade or as household pets. For purposes of this Act, pet animal shall include birds. |
Statute | ||
| Richard B. Rappaport v. Max E. McElroy, D.V.M., Sherwood Veterinary Clinic, Inc. and Does 1 through 30, Inclusive |
In this California case, plaintiff sued a veterinarian for giving his exotic pet (a Serval cat), a flea treatment known to be toxic to cats. The veterinary malpractice action focused on defendant’s negligence in failing to exercise a reasonable level of knowledge and skill ordinarily possessed by others practicing veterinary medicine. In fact, plaintiff contended that it is well known in the field and indicated by the manufacturer of Spotton, that the drug should not be used on felines. Plaintiff prayed for damages in the amount of $25,000, which included lost wages, the commercial value of the cat, and loss of companionship, among other things. |
Pleading |