Results
| Title | Citation | Alternate Citation | Agency Citation | Summary | Type |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ANIMAL LEGAL DEFENSE FUND, ANIMAL WELFARE INSTITUTE, COMPLAINT FOR VALERIE BUCHANAN, JANE GARRISON, AND NANCY MEGNA DECLARATORY | This action concerns a lawsuit filed by the Animal Legal Defense Fund (ALDF), et al, over the lack of action by the federal agency, the Animal & Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) to adopt a policy on what constitutes appropriate conditions for primates in federally licensed or registered facilities. Specifically, the complaint alleges that the failure of the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) of the United State Department of Agriculture to make a final decision concerning the defendants' proposed “Policy On Environment Enhancement For Nonhuman Primates.” See 64 Fed. Reg. 38,145 (July 15, 1999) (Policy). APHIS determined at least seven years ago that APHIS enforcement officials and the regulated community urgently need such a policy to insure that primates are housed in “physical environments adequate to promote the[ir] psychological well-being,” as required by the Animal Welfare Act (AWA). 7 U.S.C. § 2143. By failing to make a final decision on the proposed Policy, defendants are violating the Animal Welfare Act, 7 U.S.C. § 2143, and are unreasonably delaying and/or unlawfully withholding agency action in violation of the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. § 706(1). | Pleading | |||
| WA - Humane Slaughter - Chapter 16.50. Humane Slaughter of Livestock. | West's RCWA 16.50.100 - 900 | WA ST 16.50.100 - 900 | The Washington humane slaughter laws begin with a statement that it is declared to be the policy of the state of Washington to require that the slaughter of all livestock, and the handling of livestock in connection with slaughter, shall be carried out only by humane methods. Humane methods are defined are those methods whereby the animal is rendered insensible to pain by mechanical, electrical, chemical or other means that is rapid and effective, before being shackled, hoisted, thrown, cast or cut; or methods in accordance with the ritual requirements of any religious faith whereby the animal suffers loss of consciousness by anemia of the brain. "Livestock" is limited under the statute to cattle, calves, sheep, swine, horses, mules and goats. Note that the director may, by administrative order, exempt a person from compliance with this chapter for a period of not to exceed six months if he finds that an earlier compliance would cause such person undue hardship. Violation of the act constitutes a misdemeanor and is subject to a fine of not more than two hundred fifty dollars or confinement in the county jail for not more than ninety days. | Statute | |
| MS - Exotic pet - Chapter 8. Importation, Sale and Possession of Inherently Dangerous Wild Animals. | Miss. Code Ann. § 49-8-1 to 49-8-19 | MS ST § 49-8-1 to 49-8-19 | This Mississippi chapter states that it is in the public interest to ensure the public health, safety and welfare by strictly regulating the importation, sale, transfer and possession of those wild animals inherently dangerous to humans. Several species are listed under this section as inherently dangerous to humans, including non-human primates, wolves, bears, hyenas, big cats, and hippopotamus, among others. It is unlawful for a person to import, transfer, sell, purchase or possess any wild animal classified inherently dangerous by law or regulation unless that person holds a permit. Those persons who were in possession of such animals on or before May 1, 1997 were able to continue possession provided that they complied with the permit process. Prior to the issuance of a permit, the applicant must have provided proof of liability insurance in the amount of $100,000.00 for each wild animal up to a maximum of $1,000,000.00. | Statute | |
| England, Wales & Scotland - Sales, live animal - The Welfare of Animals at Markets Order 1990 | 1990 No. 2628 | Rules covering the treatment of animals in markets, which make it an offence to cause or permit any injury or unnecessary suffering to an animal at a market. The Order also sets out specific arrangements in respect of penning, food and water and the care of young animals. | Statute | ||
| ID - Idaho Falls - Title 1: General Provisions & Title 5: Criminal Code (Chapter 9: Animals) | City Code of the City of Idaho Falls §§ 1-3-5, 5-1-3, 5-9-3 to 5-9-4 |
In Idaho Falls, Idaho, any person who causes an animal to fight for amusement, or for gain, or to worry or injure each other; and any person who permits the same to be done on any premises under his charge or control; and any person who aids, abets or is present as a spectator is guilty of a misdemeanor. Additionally, any person who owns, possesses, keeps or trains any bird or animal, with the intent that such bird or animal engage in an exhibition of fighting, or any person who is present at any place, building or tenement, where preparations are being made for an exhibition of fighting of birds or animals, with the intent to be present at such exhibition, is guilty of a misdemeanor. Any person violating these provisions may be punished by imprisonment for a term not exceeding six (6) months, or by a fine not exceeding one thousand dollars ($1,000), or by both. |
Local Ordinance | ||
| Mack v. State of Texas (unpublished) | 2003 WL 23015101 (Not Reported in S.W.3d) |
The Texas Appeals Court affirmed the trial court's decision that failure to adequately provide for cattle such that they suffered from malnourishment constituted animal cruelty offense under Texas law. The court found that the evidence was legally sufficient to establish that malnourished cow was one of the many domesticated living creatures on defendant's ranch, and was therefore an “animal” under the state law. |
Case | ||
| Thurber v. Apmann | 91 A.D.3d 1257 (N.Y.A.D. 3 Dept., 2012) | 2012 WL 225395 (N.Y.A.D. 3 Dept.); 936 N.Y.S.2d 789 |
In 2007, the plaintiff and defendant were walking their respective dogs when one of defendant's two dogs, a retired K-9 dog, attacked the plaintiff's dog. Plaintiff sued defendant for damages she received as a result. While each dog did received "handler protection" training (where a K-9 dog is trained to react to an aggressive attack on defendant while on duty), that situation had never arisen because the dogs acted in passive roles as explosive detection dogs. Plaintiff countered that the severity of the attack coupled with the dogs' breed and formal police training should have put defendant on notice of the dogs' vicious propensities. In affirming the summary judgment, this court found that the formal police training was not evidence of viciousness and there was no support to plaintiff's assertion that defendant kept the dogs as "guard dogs." |
Case | |
| US - Invasive - Chapter 67. Aquatic Nuisance Prevention and Control | 16 USCS 4701 - 4751 | The Act focuses on all aquatics, including aquatic plants. The Act created the Aquatic Nuisance Species Task Force, which is an intergovernmental organization, administered by the Fish and Wildlife Service, committed to preventing and controlling aquatic nuisance species and implementing the Nonindigenous Aquatic Nuisance Prevention and Control Act. The Task Force coordinates Federal governmental efforts dealing with aquatic nuisance species with those of state and local governments, non-governmental organizations, academic institutions, and the private sector. | Statute | ||
| US - Migratory Bird - Migratory Bird Permits; Regulations for Double-Crested Cormorant Management | 2003 WL 22295159 | FR Doc. 03-25500 |
Increasing populations of the double-crested cormorant have caused biological and socioeconomic resource conflicts. In November 2001, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service or we) completed a Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) on double-crested cormorant management. In March 2003, a proposed rule was published to establish regulations to implement the DEIS proposed action, Alternative D. In August 2003, the notice of availability for a Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) was published, followed by a 30- day comment period. This final rule sets forth regulations for implementing the FEIS preferred alternative, Alternative D (establishment of a public resource depredation order and revision of the aquaculture depredation order). It also provides responses to comments we received during the 60-day public comment period on the proposed rule. The Record of Decision (ROD) is also published here. |
Administrative | |
| Ray and Marie Powers v. Wesley and Mary Tincher |
While plaintiff’s complaint and demand focus on the threats and alleged actions of trespass by defendants, the Common Pleas Court’s decision focuses instead on the defendant’s request for injunctive relief based on a nuisance violation. Specifically, defendants apparently alleged that plaintiff’s keeping of over one hundred roosters constituted a private nuisance. Relying on a case of similar facts, the court held that plaintiffs’ keeping of over one hundred roosters for the purpose of cockfighting constituted a private nuisance. |
Pleading |