Results
Displaying 101 - 110 of 6754
| Title | Citation | Alternate Citation | Agency Citation | Summary | Type |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ME - Horsemeat - § 2163. Sale of horsemeat | 22 M.R.S.A. § 2163 | ME ST T. 22 § 2163 | This Maine statute provides that a person, firm, corporation or officer, agent or employee thereof within the State may not transport, receive for transportation, sell or offer for sale or distribution any equine meat or food products thereof or serve, expose or offer for sale or distribution, either in any public place or elsewhere, any equine meat or products containing equine meat. | Statute | |
| Michigan Compiled Laws 1838: Chapter 8: Section 22 | Mich. Rev. Stat. ch. 8, § 22 (1838) | The Michigan law concerning the treatment of animals from 1838. The law states the punishment for the crime, and factors for determining if the crime has occurred. | Statute | ||
| UT - Native American - § 64-13-40. Worship for native American inmates | U.C.A. 1953 § 64-13-40 | UT ST § 64-13-40 | This unique provision allows Native American inmates in Utah access to eagle parts and other traditional ceremonial objects for use in worship. The inmate has the burden of establishing his or her Native American ancestry. | Statute | |
| Canada - Saskatchewan - The Animal Protection Act | Chapter A-21.2 of the Statutes of Saskatchewan, 2018 | This set of laws comprises the Saskatchewan Animal Protection Act, which was amended in 2018. Under the Act, no person responsible for an animal shall cause or permit the animal to be or to continue to be in distress. An animal can be in distress if it is deprived of sufficient food, water, shelter, or veterinary care/medical attention, or kept in unsafe or unsanitary conditions, among other things. The Act also outlines the powers of humane societies to rescue animals in distress and then sell, give away, or euthanize such animals if the owners cannot be located. A person who contravenes the Act is guilty of an offence with a fine of not more than $25,000, to imprisonment for not more than two years or to both for a first offence. Further, in addition to any other penalty imposed, if a person responsible for an animal is found guilty, the court may make an order prohibiting that person from owning or having custody or control of any animal for a period specified by the court. Part 3 (sections 28 to 31) of the Act outlines the provisions relating to damage or injury done by dogs and Part 4 (sections 32 to 34) deals with protections for service animals. | Statute | ||
| RI - Rodeo - Chapter 20. Rodeo Animals and Livestock | Gen. Laws, 1956, § 4-20-1 to 9 | RI ST § 4-20-1 to 9 | The purpose of this chapter is to establish guidelines and criteria for rodeo and rodeo related activities relative to humane treatment of rodeo animals and rodeo livestock in the state. | Statute | |
| Stauber v. Shalala | 895 F.Supp. 1178 (W.D.Wis.,1995) |
Court found that milk consumers failed to prove that milk gained from rBST-treated cows contains higher levels of antibiotics, tastes different, or differs in any noticeable way from "ordinary" milk. That consumers might demand mandatory labeling was not enough to require labeling; rather, the FDA was required to ensure that products are not misbranded and consumer demand could not require the FDA to forgo this duty. |
Case | ||
| Hogan v. Hogan | 199 So. 3d 50 (Ala. Civ. App. 2015) | 2015 WL 7889623 (Ala. Civ. App. Dec. 4, 2015) | This case is an appeal of a judgment granting an Alabama divorce. With regard to animal law, the husband argues on appeal that the trial court erred in awarding the wife the couple's two dogs. Specifically, the husband argues that one of the dogs was given to him as a gift and is therefore his separate property. He also suggests that because the dogs lived with him since his wife moved out of the marital property (from 11/2012 until 02/2015), he is the "proper owner" of the dogs. While this court noted that evidence concerning ownership was disputed at trial, the evidence is undisputed that the wife entered the marriage with one of the dogs. The second dog was given to both parties by the wife's niece. In examining Alabama law, the court observed that it has long been held that dogs are property. Thus, evidence of ownership can come from documentary title (like a dog license or registration) or possession. Here, the court was persuaded by the testimony that when the wife moved out, she moved into an apartment and was unable to take the dogs with her. No evidence was presented that the wife's circumstances changed to allow her to keep the dogs, and there was no showing that the wife sought court intervention to regain possession of the dogs. Thus, the court stated the following: "Based on the presumption stated in Placey, supra, that the ownership of a pet is presumed to be in the person who possesses it, and given the wife's failure to present evidence indicating that she was in a position to take the dogs, we conclude that the evidence does not support the trial court's decision to award the dogs to the wife. Accordingly, that portion of the judgment awarding the dogs to the wife is reversed." | Case | |
| FL - Rehabilitation, wildlife - 68A-9.006. Wildlife Rehabilitation Permit. | 68 FL ADC 68A-9.006 | Rule 68A-9.006, F.A.C. | This Florida regulation sets forth the requirements to obtain a permit for wildlife rehabilitation. | Administrative | |
| U.S. v. Wahchumwah | 704 F.3d 606 (C.A.9 (Wash.)) | 2012 WL 5951624 (C.A.9 (Wash.)) |
After a government agent recorded a sale of eagle parts using a concealed audio visual device, the agent obtained a warrant and arrested the defendant for violating the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act. Upon appeal, the defendant challenged his jury conviction arguing two Constitutional violations, a Federal Rules of Evidence violation, and multiplicitous counts. The appeals court affirmed the jury conviction on all claims except the multiplicitous counts claim; this conviction was reversed. This opinion was Amended and Superseded on Denial of Rehearing by U.S. v. Wahchumwah , 710 F.3d 862 (9th Cir., 2012). |
Case | |
| GA - Dangerous Dog Ordinances - Chapter 8. Dogs | Ga. Code Ann., § 4-8-29 | GA ST § 4-8-29 | This Georgia statute states the standards and requirements for the control of dangerous dogs and vicious dogs; this statute also proscribes penalties for violations of these standards and requirements. For instance, a violation of this article is a misdemeanor of high and aggravated nature; repeated violations of this article is a felony. | Statute |