Results
Displaying 6231 - 6240 of 6638
| Title | Citation | Alternate Citation | Agency Citation | Summary | Type |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| TX - Facility dog - § 21.012. Presence of Qualified Facility Dog or Qualified Therapy Dog in Court Proceeding | V. T. C. A., Government Code § 21.012 | TX GOVT § 21.012 | Texas enacted a facility dog/courthouse dog law in 2021. Under the law, any party to an action filed in a court in this state in which a proceeding related to the action will be held may petition the court for an order authorizing a qualified facility dog or qualified therapy dog to be present with a witness who is testifying before the court. The court may enter an order authorizing a qualified facility dog or qualified therapy dog to accompany a witness testifying at the court proceeding if: (1) the presence of the dog will assist the witness in providing testimony; and (2) the party petitioning for the order provides proof of liability insurance coverage in effect for the dog. A handler must accompany the qualified facility dog (as defined in the law). | Statute | |
| New Books |
New BooksRandall S. Abate (editor), What Can Animal Law Learn From Environmental Law? Environmental Law Institute (2015). |
Basic page | |||
| CA - Theft - § 487e. Grand theft; dog exceeding value of $950 | West's Ann. Cal. Penal Code § 487e, 487f, 487g, 491 | CA PENAL § 487e, 487f, 487g, 491 | These provisions of the California Penal Code deal with stealing companion animals. A person who feloniously steals, takes, or carries away a companion animal of another which is of a value exceeding nine hundred fifty dollars ($950) is guilty of grand theft. If a person steals or maliciously takes an animal of another for purposes of sale, medical research, slaughter, or other commercial use (or does so by fraud or false representation), he or she commits a public offense punishable by imprisonment in a county jail not exceeding 1 year or in the state prison. | Statute | |
| AU - Cruelty - Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act 1986 (VIC) | Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act 1986 (Version No. 080) |
The purposes of this Act are to promote the responsible care and use of animals; provide standards for the care and use of animals that achieve a reasonable balance between the welfare of animals and the interests of persons whose livelihood is dependent on animals; and to allow for the effect of advancements in scientific knowledge about animal biology and changes in community expectations about practices involving animals; to protect animals from unjustifiable, unnecessary or unreasonable pain; to ensure the use of animals for scientific purposes is accountable, open and responsible. |
Statute | ||
| In re: JAMES JOSEPH HICKEY, JR., d/b/a S & H SUPPLY CO., AND JERRY R. BRANTON | 53 Agric. Dec. 1087 (1994) | 1994 WL 657129 (U.S.D.A.) | Respondents' failure to file timely answer, or deny allegations of complaint, constituted admission of complaint allegations and waiver of hearing, irrespective of respondents' contention that they were justified in not filing answer because ALJ did not rule on respondents' motions to sever, strike and make more definite and certain, since Department's rules of practice do not alter time for filing answer when such motions are filed. | Case | |
| Feld Entertainment, Inc. v. A.S.P.C.A. | 523 F.Supp.2d 1 (D.D.C., 2007) | 2007 WL 3285836 (D.D.C.) |
Pending before the Court is Defendant American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, et al.'s (“ASPCA”) Motion to Temporarily Stay All Proceedings. The suit arises from Feld Entertainment, Inc. (“FEI”) claim against the ASPCA and other defendants, including Tom Rider, alleging violations of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (“RICO”). The gravamen of plaintiff's complaint is that defendant Tom Rider has been bribed by the organizational defendants to participate in the ESA Action against FEI in violation of federal law. The court agreed that the public interest in the ESA claim weighs in favor of granting the temporary stay. |
Case | |
| Sentencia SU016/20 | Sentencia SU016/20 | In decision SU016 of 2020, the court confirmed its decision to revoke the habeas corpus granted to Chucho, the Andean bear. After holding a public audience where many experts spoke as to the possibility of granting wild animals the status of legal persons and the right to freedom, the Constitutional Court held that the judge that have granted habeas corpus had incurred in a legal error as animals have not a right to freedom, and the habeas corpus is a legal mechanism available for humans that are illegally and unjustly detained. It is no available to animals. Moreover, the court stated that there were other more adequate mechanism to guarantee the well-being of animals, such as an inquiry for intervention of the environmental authorities, or a popular action. With this decision, the status of animals remains the same. Animals are legally recognized as sentient beings, subject to special legal protection, and humans have the duty to take care of them. | Case | ||
| WV - Dogs, deer - § 20-2-5j. Leashed dogs for tracking mortally wounded deer or bear | W. Va. Code, § 20-2-5j | WV ST § 20-2-5j | This West Virginia law enacted in 2020 provides that a person who is legally hunting and reasonably believes he or she has mortally wounded a deer or bear may use leashed dogs to track and locate the mortally wounded deer or bear. The hunter is also permitted to use a dog handler of leashed dogs to track and locate the mortally wounded deer or bear. The hunter or the dog handler shall maintain physical control of the leashed dogs at all times. | Statute | |
| US - Livestock - Farm Sanctuary, et al v. Vilsack (Petition to Amend Rule) | Submitted by Farm Sanctuary, ASPCA, Animal Legal Defense Fund, Animal Welfare Institute, Compassion in World Farming, Compassion Over Killing, Farm Forward, and Mercy For Animals | The undersigned submit this petition to request that the Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) amend the ante-mortem inspection regulations to prohibit the slaughter of non-ambulatory disabled (NAD) pigs.1 Specifically, Petitioners request that FSIS amend 9 C.F.R. § 309.3 by adding a provision: "(f) Non-ambulatory disabled pigs that are offered for slaughter must be condemned and humanely euthanized in accordance with § 309.13." Read the regulation this petition challenges. | Administrative | ||
| AK - Cruelty - Consolidated Cruelty Statutes | AS § 03.55.100 - 190; AS § 11.61.140 - 145 | AK ST § 03.55.100 - 190; AK ST § 11.61.140 - 145 | This section comprises Alaska's anti-cruelty and animal fighting laws, which were amended in 2010. A person commits cruelty to animals if the person: knowingly inflicts severe and prolonged physical pain or suffering on an animal; with criminal negligence, fails to care for an animal and, as a result, causes the death of the animal or causes severe physical pain or prolonged suffering to the animal; kills or injures an animal by the use of a decompression chamber; intentionally kills or injures a pet or livestock by the use of poison; knowingly kills or injures an animal with the intent to intimidate, threaten, or terrorize another person; or knowingly engages in sexual conduct with an animal, films such activity, induces such activity, or intentionally permits this to occur on premises under the person's control. The court may also prohibit or limit the defendant's ownership, possession, or custody of animals for up to 10 years for convictions under this section. | Statute |