|Supreme Beef Processors, Inc. v. U.S. Dept. of Agriculture||275 F.3d 432 (C.A.5 (Tex.),2001)||51 Fed.R.Serv.3d 1445 (2001)||
The Fifth Circuit United States Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's decision that the Federal Meat Inspection Act focuses on the processes used by a manufacturer and not the product itself, and that the presence of Salmonella bacteria in the meat does not necessarily make a product "adulterated" because the act of the cooking meat normally destroys the bacteria.
|Animal Law Index Volume 18, Part 1||
Animal Law Review, Volume 18, Issue 1 (Fall 2011)
|Knaust v. Digesualdo||589 Fed.Appx. 698 (5th Cir. 2014)||Appellant operated a USDA-licensed exotic animal business in Texas. In February 2010, a United States Department of Agriculture (“USDA”) Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service agent visited the business on a routine inspection and cited Appellant for several USDA regulation violations. After several subsequent inspections, several other violations were discovered and Appellant was presented with a Notice of Intent to Confiscate Animals. The next day, the animals were confiscated. Using Bivens, Appellant argued the agents violated her Fifth Amendment Due Process rights by (1) seizing her property without providing a method for challenging the seizure and (2) not allowing sufficient time to cure the cited violations prior to seizing her property. The district court granted Defendants' motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim. On appeal, the 9th Circuit affirmed the district court’s decision because the Appellant failed to assert factual allegations showing how each defendant, by his or her own individual acts, violated her constitutional rights.||Case|
|IL - Dog Fighting - Chapter 720. Criminal Offenses||720 I.L.C.S. 5/48-1||IL ST CH 720 § 5/48-1||The following statute comprises Illinois' dogfighting law. Under the law, it is a felony to promote or instigate a fight, or to train or sell a dog for dogfighting purposes. Further, no person may solicit a minor to violate this Section. Providing equipment or aiding in providing equipment for a fight is also a felony. Knowingly attending a dogfight is a Class 4 felony for a first violation. A second or subsequent violation of subsection (g) of this Section is a Class 3 felony.||Statute|
|CA - Food Production - Chapter 13.4. Force Fed Birds||West's Ann. Cal. Health & Safety Code § 25980 - 25984||CA HLTH & S § 25980 - 25984||This chapter concerns force fed birds (usually ducks or geese), employed in the process of making foie gras. Beginning July 1, 2012, California outlaws the sale of any product in the state that is the result of force feeding a bird for the purpose of enlarging the bird's liver beyond normal size. A peace or humane society officer may issue a citation for a civil penalty up to $1,000 for each violation, and up to $1,000 for each day the violation continues.||Statute|
|U.S. v. 3,210 crusted sides of Caiman crocodilus yacare||636 F.Supp. 1281 (S.D. Fla. 1986)||
The plaintiff, the United States of America, seeks forfeiture of the defendant, 10,870 crusted sides of Caiman crocodilus yacare, an endangered species of wildlife (hides) transported from Bolivia to the U.S. in violation of the Lacey Act, among other statutes. The court found that the testimony concerning the shrinkage of the crocodile hides during tanning did not meet the buren of the claimed owners showing by a preponderance of the evidence that the hides, which were shipped from Bolivia under the size limit imposed by Bolivian law, were not subject to the forfeiture provisions of the Lacey Act, 16 U.S.C. § 3374(a)(1) (1985). The provision of the Lacey Act at issue prohibits the interstate or foreign commerce of any wildlife taken in violation of any foreign law.
|U.S. v. Fullmer||584 F.3d 132 (C.A.3 (N.J.), 2009)||2009 WL 3273955 (C.A.3 (N.J.))||
In an issue of first impression, this Court considered whether the Animal Enterprise Protection Act (AEPA) was unconstitutional either on its face or as-applied to defendants. The defendants in this case were an animal rights organization ("SHAC") and six associated individuals. The defendants engaged in direct action ranging from electronic civil disobedience to destroying property at the homes of individuals associated with Huntingdon Life Sciences (a research corporation that performs animal testing for other companies). Defendants argued that the statute has a chilling effect on speech because protestors will refrain from all speech, even protected speech, due to the ambiguity of what the statute proscribes. Thus the Court found that the government provided sufficient evidence to prove that the defendants conspired to violate the AEPA.
|United States Association of Reptile Keepers, Inc. v. Jewell||103 F. Supp. 3d 133 (D.D.C. 2015)||2015 WL 2207603 (D.D.C, 2015)||On a motion for a preliminary injunction to enjoin implementation of the 2015 Rule (80 Fed.Reg. 12702 ), the US District Court for the District of Columbia addressed whether the U.S. Department of Interior acted within its authority when it issued Lacey Act regulations prohibiting the interstate transportation of certain large constricting snakes. The United States Association of Reptile Keepers argued that since the Lacey Act “[did] not encompass transportation of listed species between two states within the continental United States,” the Department of Interior exceeded its authority. Relying on the history of zebra mussels and bighead carp, the Department argued that it did not. The Court, however, found the Department had failed to establish that that history was sufficient to confer an authority on the Department that Congress did not confer when it enacted the controlling statutory text. The Court ruled the preliminary injunction would issue and ordered the parties to appear for a status conference on May 18, 2015 to address the scope of the injunction.||Case|
|FL - Veterinary - Veterinary Medical Practice.||West's F. S. A. § 474.201 - 221||FL ST § 474.201 - 221||
These are the state's veterinary practice laws. Among the provisions include licensing requirements, laws concerning the state veterinary board, veterinary records laws, and the laws governing disciplinary actions for impaired or incompetent practitioners.
|AZ - Pet Sales - Title 44. Trade and Commerce. Chapter 11. Regulations Concerning Particular Businesses.||A. R. S. 44-1799 - 1799.11||AZ ST 44-1799 - 1799.11||This Arizona statutory section comprises the state's pet shop laws. The section requires that retail pet sellers provide purchasers a notice of rights that includes a statement of good health signed by a veterinarian. Purchasers have fifteen days to return unhealthy or diseased dogs and receive a refund or compensation for reasonable veterinary expenses.||Statute|