Results
| Title | Citation | Alternate Citation | Agency Citation | Summary | Type |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| SC - Endangered Species - Chapter 123 Department of Natural Resources | S.C. Code of Regulations R. 123-150 - 170 | SC ADC 123-150 to 170 | These South Carolina regulations list the non-game wildlife on the state's List of Endangered Wildlife Species, as well as the animals that are considered threatened and "in need of management." If an animal is listed as threatened or endangered, a permit must be obtained in certain situations to avoid penalty for "taking" a listed species. Furthermore, these regulations also set out provisions for hunting alligators and selling alligator meat and hide; for obtaining vultures, kites, hawks, eagles, ospreys, falcons, and owls for the practice of falconry; and for protecting sea turtles by regulating the nets on shrimping trawls. | Administrative | |
| RSPCA v O'Loughlan | [2007] SASC 113 |
The appellant, the RSPCA, relied on the fact that a horse, once in RSPCA care, had a significantly improved condition in comparison to that described as 'emaciated' while in the respondent's care. The respondent claimed that the horse's condition fluctuated depending on the presence of mares in heat during summer and that she had tried several changes to the feed to counter a loss in weight. On appeal, the appellate judge did not disturb the trial judge's finding and confirmed that the respondent's conduct was reasonable in the circumstances. |
Case | ||
| TX - Hunting - § 62.002. Computer-Assisted Remote Hunting | V. T. C. A., Parks & Wildlife Code § 62.002 | TX PARKS & WILD § 62.002 | Under this Texas statute, a person may not engage in computer-assisted remote hunting or provide or operate such facilities if the animal being hunted is located in Texas. A violation is a Class B misdemeanor. | Statute | |
| PetConnect Rescue, Inc. v. Salinas | Not Reported in Fed. Supp., 2020 WL 2832468 (S.D. Cal. June 1, 2020) | No. 20-CV-00527-H-KSC (S.D. Cal. June 1, 2020) | PetConnect Rescue, Inc., Lucky Pup Dog Rescue.com and Sarah Gonzalez (“Plaintiffs”) alleged that the Defendants fraudulently represented dogs that the Defendants sold as rescue animals in order to circumvent California law prohibiting the sale of non-rescue dogs in pet stores. On April 6, 2020, Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint against the Defendants alleging trademark infringement and dilution under the Lanham Act, unfair business practices under California’s Unfair Competition Law (“UCL”) and violations of California’s Consumer Legal Remedies Act (“CLRA”), fraud, and accounting. Several Defendant filed motions to dismiss and to strike sections of the amended complaint. The United States District Court for the Southern District of California found that Plaintiff PetConnect alleged a cognizable injury in fact in that the Defendants’ use of an infringing mark harmed Plaintiff PetConnect Rescue’s reputation and caused consumer confusion. The Defendants’ Pet Connect Rescue, Inc. brokered the sale of dogs from puppy mills rather than rescue dogs which affected Plaintiff PetConnect’s reputation. The Court also found that Plaintiff PetConnect Rescue raised a claim within the Lanham Act’s zone of interests because the Lanham Act’s protections extended to non-profit organizations’ use of marks, even when those marks do not accompany a sale. The Court refused to dismiss Plaintiffs claims regarding trademark infringement. The Court also refused to dismiss the Plaintiff’s claims under the Lanham Act because the matter of whether Plaintiff’s mark was distinct and had acquired a secondary meaning was a matter more appropriate when the evidentiary record becomes further developed. As for the Unfair Competition claim, the Court found that the Plaintiffs had alleged sufficient facts to state a UCL violation. The Court subsequently rejected the Defendants’ motions to strike thirty-four lines or phrases from the amended complaint because Plaintiff’s use of the terms “puppy mill,” and the allegations that Defendants operate “fake” entities that “induce” purchases, reflected Plaintiff’s allegations of fraud and misrepresentation. The Court found that the Plaintiffs’ references were pertinent to the Plaintiff’s allegations. The Court ultimately denied each of the Defendant’s motions to dismiss and strike. | Case | |
| NV - Pet Sales - Title 50. Animals. Chapter 574. Cruelty to Animals: Prevention and Penalties | N. R. S. 574.450 to 574.510 | NV ST 574.450 to 574.510 | This Nevada statutory section comprises the state's pet sale laws. The law protects purchasers of pets by ensuring minimum standards of care at retail pet stores and allows purchasers to return "defective" pets within ten days of purchase. | Statute | |
| LA - Initiatives - Ballot Issue 1 (right to hunt) | Ballot Issue 1 (2004) | This Louisiana ballot measure amended the state constitution after it was resoundingly approved in November of 2004 (by 81% of voters). The measure was initiated by the state legislature in Senate Bill 2 and was sent to the electors of the state for a vote. The measure on the official ballot stated that citizens were to vote FOR or AGAINST to amend the Constitution of Louisiana with the following proposition: "To guarantee the right of every citizen to hunt, fish and trap, subject to regulation, restriction, or prohibition as provided by law. (Adds Article I, 14 Section 27)." | Statute | ||
| Storms v. Fred Meyer Stores, Inc. | 120 P.3d 126 (Wash.App. Div. 1,2005) | 129 Wash.App. 820; 31 NDLR P 98 (Wash.App. Div. 1,2005) |
This Washington discrimination case was brought by a dog owner (Storms) with psychiatric conditions against a store and its managers who refused to allow her to stay in store with her alleged service dog. The dog was trained to put herself between Storms and other people so as to keep an open area around Storms and alleviate her anxiety (a symptom of her post-traumatic stress syndrome). The appellate court found that there was sufficient evidence to establish a prima facie case of discrimination against Fred Meyer for refusing to allow her to shop accompanied by her dog. Testimony showed that Brandy had been specifically trained to help Storms with her particular disability by placing herself in between Storms and others in a way that alleviated her anxiety, which was further corroborated by testimony that Brandy engaged in such behavior. Thus, evidence showed that the defendants' violated RCW 49.60.215 by not allowing Storms to do her own shopping within the store because she was accompanied by a service animal. |
Case | |
| US - Slaughter - Humane Slaughter of Livestock Regulations | 9 C.F.R. 313.1 - 313.90 | These regulations outline the requirements for the humane treatment of livestock prior to and during slaughter. Included are the requirements for pens, holding, and transportation areas, and the special circumstances for transporting and holding "downed" (nonambulatory) livestock. The regulations emphasize the minimization of "excitement and discomfort" to the livestock prior to transportation or slaughter. Of special note are the requirements for humane methods of slaughter, including the use of carbon dioxide gas, captive bolt "stunners" and projectiles, gunshot, and electrical current. | Administrative | ||
| RI - Ordinances - § 4-13-8. Disposition of license fees | Gen. Laws, 1956, § 4-13-8 | RI ST § 4-13-8 | This Rhode Island statute provides that towns and cities may adopt ordinances or regulations concerning the use of money received for dog licenses. | Statute | |
| NC - Hunting - § 113-291.1A. Computer-assisted remote hunting prohibited | N.C.G.S.A. § 113-291.1A | NC ST § 113-291.1A | This North Carolina law states that it is unlawful for a person to engage in computer-assisted remote hunting or provide or operate a facility that allows others to engage in computer-assisted remote hunting if the wild animal or wild bird being hunted or shot is located in this State. | Statute |