|Title||Citation||Alternate Citation||Agency Citation||Summary||Type|
|Lay v. Chamberlain||2000 WL 1819060 (Ohio Ct. App. Dec. 11, 2000) (Not Reported in N.E.2d)||2000 Ohio App. LEXIS 5783||Chamberlain owned a dog breeding kennel with over one hundred fifty dogs. An investigation was conducted when the Sheriff's Office received complaints about the condition of the animals. Observations indicated the kennel was hot, overcrowded, and poorly ventilated. The dogs had severely matted fur, were sick or injured, and lived in cages covered in feces. Dog food was moldy and water bowls were dirty. Many cages were stacked on top of other cages, allowing urine and feces to fall on the dogs below. A court order was granted to remove the dogs. The humane society, rescue groups, and numerous volunteers assisted by providing food, shelter, grooming and necessary veterinary care while Chamberlain's criminal trial was pending. Chamberlain was convicted of animal cruelty. The organizations and volunteers sued Chamberlain for compensation for the care provided to the animals. The trial court granted the award and the appellate court affirmed. Ohio code authorized appellees' standing to sue for the expenses necessary to prevent neglect to the animals. The evidence was sufficient to support an award for damages for the humane society, the rescue groups, and the individual volunteers that protected and provided for the well-being of the dogs during the months of the trial.||Case|
|EU - Farming - Council Directive 2008/119/EC (Calves)||2008/119/EC||
Even before passage of this important new directive setting down minimum standards for the protection of calves, the use of veal crates for rearing calves had already been illegal in the EU (since 2006). The new directive, however, passed on December 18, 2008, fleshed out older one, establishing new welfare minimums under which veal could be raised. According to the new directive, veal calves may, when very young, be kept in individual pens, but must be able to turn around and to see and touch other calves through perforated walls. Once they are more than eight weeks old, veal calves must be reared in groups. To guard against the nutrient-deficient diet veal calves have long been fed on factory farms—and continue to be fed on farms in the United States—European calves must, at least twice a day, be fed a diet that meets basic health requirements to ensure their bodies develop normally.
|WI - Juneau - Breed - 6.04.090 Pit bulls and other dangerous animals.||JUNEAU, WI., MUNICIPAL CODE § 6.04.090 (1998)||
It is unlawful to keep, harbor, own or possess any pit bull dog in Juneau, Wisconsin, with an exception for pit bulls registered on the day the ordinance became effective. Such dogs may be kept within the city subject to certain requirements, such as proper confinement, the use of a leash and muzzle, the posting of "Beware of Dog" signs, and the maintenance of $50,000 liability insurance for personal injury caused by a pit bull.
|Fabrikant v. French||722 F.Supp.2d 249 (N.D.N.Y., 2010)||2010 WL 2774043 (N.D.N.Y.)||
Plaintiff Jody Fabrikant, who had recently placed an advertisement for the adoption of puppies, was in possession of fifteen animals, including fourteen dogs and one cat. Reacting to several complaints regarding the animals’ treatment, defendants, the Ulster County SPCA and employees, executed a search warrant resulting in Fabrikant's arrest and seizure of thirteen of her fifteen animals. Plaintiff subsequently asserted that her federal constitutional rights were violated during the course of her criminal prosecution for animal cruelty. With respect to all four federal claims, the United States District Court for the Northern District of New York granted defendants’ motions for summary judgment since the existence of probable cause (e.g., video recordings and photographs of the condition of the plaintiff’s home) insulated the defendants from liability for their decisions to seize Plaintiff's animals.
|Kokechik Fishermen's Association v. Secretary of Commerce||839 F.2d 795 (1988)||268 U.S. App. D.C. 116 (1988)||
The Secretary of Commerce issued a regulation authorizing appellant salmon federation to take a fixed number of porpoise in connection to commercial fishing for salmon. Appellee commercial fishermen opposed the permit. The federation sought review of a judgment which preliminarily enjoined the Secretary from issuing the permit.
|NC - Restaurant, animals - 2656 PHYSICAL FACILITIES||15A NC ADC 18A.2656||15A NCAC 18A.2656||This North Carolina regulation makes amendments to the Food Code related to dogs and cats in outdoor dining areas. Dogs and cats are allowed in outdoor dining areas provided the dogs or cats are physically restrained and do not pass through the indoor area of the food establishment. All live animals, including pet cats and dogs, are not permitted to come into physical contact with any serving food, serving dishes, tableware, linens, utensils, or other food service items. Employees of a food establishment who prepare or handle food must not physically contact any live animals.||Administrative|
|Nigeria - Endangered Species - Endangered Species Act (in English)||Decree No. 11 of 1985||The hunting or capture of or trade in animal species listed in the First Schedule to this Act is absolutely prohibited. Furthermore, no person shall hunt, capture, trade in or otherwise deal with an animal species specified in the Second Schedule to this Act except if that person is in possession of a license issued under this Act. The act also sets out the conditions of licenses and permits. The Minister may by an order publish in the Federal Gazette alter the list of animals specified in the First or Second Schedule to this Act by way of addition, substitution or deletion or otherwise. Penalties for violations are also provided.||Statute|
|Minnesota 1860-1872 Public Laws: OFFENSES AGAINST CHASTITY, MORALITY, ETC.||Minn. Stat. ch. 96 § 18 (1858)||Section 18 of Chapter 96 from Minnesota Public Statutes 1860-1872 covers the treatment of animals. Specifically, the statute covers the punishment for cruelty to animals.||Statute|
|AL - Irondale - Breed - Sec. 3-90 - Pit Bulls||IRONDALE, AL., CODE OF ORDINANCES, § 3-90, 3-91||
In Irondale, Alabama, it is unlawful to keep, harbor, own or possess any pit bull dog. However, pit bull dogs registered on the date of publication may be kept within the city subject to certain requirements. These requirements include proper confinement, the use of a leash and muzzle, the posting of “Beware of Dog” signs, the taking of identification photographs, and the maintenance of liability insurance ($50,000). Failure to comply may result in the seizure of the dog, a fine up to $500 and/or imprisonment up to 30 days. The city also bans Presa Canario dogs.
|Earth Island Institute v. Evans||2004 WL 1774221 (N.D. Cal. 2004) (No reporter citation)||
The Secretary of Commerce made a final finding that the intentional deployment on or encirclement of dolphins using purse seine nets did not have a significant adverse effect on any depleted dolphin stock in the Eastern Tropical Pacific Ocean. Several organizations challenged that finding under the Administrative Procedures Act, and the matter came before this Court along with simultaneous motions for summary judgment from both the plaintiff and defendant. The Court concluded that Plaintiff's met their burden of demonstrating that they are entitled to judgment, and the finding of the Secretary is set aside.