Results
Title |
Author | Citation | Alternate Citation | Summary | Type |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| AR - Cruelty - Consolidated Cruelty/Animal Fighting Laws | A.C.A. § 5-62-101 - 127; 5-14-122 | AR ST § 5-62-101 -127; 5-14-122 | This section contains the Arkansas anti-cruelty and animal fighting provisions. A person commits a misdemeanor if he or she knowingly abandons any animal subjects any animal to cruel mistreatment, fails to supply an animal in his or her custody with a sufficient quantity of wholesome food and water fails to provide an animal in his or her custody with adequate shelter, kills or injures any animal belonging to another without legal privilege or consent of the owner, or carries an animal in or upon any motorized vehicle or boat in a cruel or inhumane manner. Aggravated cruelty to a cat, dog, or horse is a Class D felony if the offense involves the torture. | Statute | |
| AR - Companion animals - Decreto 1088/2011 | Decreto 1088/2011 | This law creates the "National Program for Responsible Ownership and Health of Dogs and Cats" in Argentina. | Statute | ||
| AR - Batesville - Breed - Pit Bull Ordinance. Sec. 6.04.12 Vicious animals-quarantine required | BATESVILLE, AR., MUNICIPAL CODE, § 6.04.12 (2010) |
In Batesville, Arkansas, pit bull dogs are banned and may not be owned or kept within the City, with exceptions for dogs that were licensed prior to the effective date of the Ordinance. In this case, the owner must provide proof of sterilization, rabies vaccination, liability insurance of $100,000, and keep the dog properly confined and display a “Beware of Dog” sign. |
Local Ordinance | ||
| AR - Assistance Animal - Arkansas Assistance Animal/Guide Dog Laws | A.C.A. § 20-14-301 to 311; A.C.A. § 23-13-717; A.C.A. § 20-14-1001 - 1004 | AR ST § 20-14-301 to 311; AR ST § 23-13-717; AR ST § 20-14-1001 - 1004 | The following statute comprises the state's relevant assistance animal and guide dog law. | Statute | |
| April in Paris v. Becerra | 494 F. Supp. 3d 756 (E.D. Cal. 2020) | Plaintiffs are a collection of businesses that distribute and sell products made from alligator and crocodile parts. They brought this suit to enjoin the provisions of a California law that would criminalize the sale and possession of alligator and crocodile parts in California. They argue that these laws would cause them to lose sales, lead to inventory liquidation, and cause job loss. The court found that the injury plaintiff were alleging was economic in nature, and that they would be likely to suffer an irreparable injury by the California law. Plaintiffs also argue that the California law is expressly preempted by the Endangered Species Act (ESA), and that trade in these species is authorized by an exemption under the regulatory "special rules" of the ESA. The court found that these exceptions applied to plaintiff's trade and possession of the animal parts, granted the injunction to enjoin California from enforcing the laws until final disposition of the case. | Case | ||
| Applbaum v. Golden Acres Farm and Ranch | 333 F. Supp. 2d 31 (N.D. N.Y. 2004) |
Minor child fell off of a horse while horseback riding at a resort ranch and sustained severe injuries. Parents of the minor child brought a personal injury claim against the stable and the stable moved for summary judgment. The trial court precluded summary judgment due to the existence of genuine issues of material fact relating the parent's assumption of the risk. |
Case | ||
| Apes, Darwinian Continuity, and the Law | Roger S. Fouts | 10 Animal L. 99 (2004) |
This article proposes that the delusional worldview that "man" is outside and above the other "defective" organic beings in nature is completely without empirical scientific foundation. An alternative and harmonious way of being is presented that is derived from the acceptance of the biological reality of continuity. |
Article | |
| Anzalone v. Kragness | 826 N.E.2d 472 (Ill. 2005) | 292 Ill. Dec. 331 (2005) |
A woman whose cat was attacked while being boarded at veterinarian's office brought claims against veterinarian and animal hospital. Trial court dismissed claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress and the Court of Appeals reversed holding dismissal was not warranted. |
Case | |
| Antimony: The Use, Rights, And Regulation Of Laboratory Animals | Brenda L. Thomas | 13 PEPP. L. REV. 3 |
This law review examines the nature of the arguments between animal rights advocates and those in favor of the continued use of laboratory animals for research; the parties and their positions will be identified. Consideration will be given to (1) a brief overview of the historical and philosophical basis of the animal rights movement, (2) an examination of whether animals and their particular advocates have standing to bring suit in the courts, (3) an examination of current federal and state regulations concerning laboratory animals and the effect of these laws upon recent court decisions, and (4) a discussion of proposed changes in the law and proposed alternatives to the use of laboratory animals. |
Article | |
| Anti-Speciesism: The Appropriation and Misrepresentation of Animal Rights in Joan Dunayers Speciesism (Abridged) | Jeff Perz | 2 Journal of Animal Law 49 (2006) |
Joan Dunayer's Speciesism appropriates and misrepresents the animal rights theory of Gary L. Francione. Dunayer's objections to Francione's highly qualified suggestion that a prohibition against confining hens to battery cages could be consistent with animal rights theory are specious. If the exploitation of non-human animals is to be completely abolished, those who bring about this result will have necessary been informed by a consistent, well-supported theoretical framework. |
Article |