Results
| Title | Citation | Alternate Citation | Agency Citation | Summary | Type |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| FL - Hunting, remote - 68A-4.001. General Prohibitions | 68 FL ADC 68A-4.001 | Rule 68A-4.001, F.A.C. | This Florida regulation prohibits a person from taking or assisting in taking wildlife using a method that involves remote control aiming and discharging of a gun when that person is not physically present at the location of that gun, among other things. | Administrative | |
| Canadian Perspectives on Animals and the Law |
|
Policy | |||
| State ex rel. Miller v. Claiborne | 505 P.2d 732 (Kan. 1973) |
The Kansas Attorney General had advised the cockfighter that cockfighting was illegal in Kansas under the provisions of § 21-4310 (Supp. 1972). The gamecock fighter believed the Attorney General was wrong and advised a county attorney that he intended to fight gamecocks on his farm so the State then sought a declaratory judgment. On appeal, the court found that cockfighting did not fall within the prohibition of § 21-4310 as constituting cruelty to animals, as Kansas statutes proscribing cruelty to animals had traditionally been directed toward protection of the four-legged animal, especially beasts of the field and beasts of burden. |
Case | ||
| AR - Health - State Board of Health Rabies Regulations | AR ADC 007.15.1-I - XII | Ark. Admin. Code 007.15.1-I to XII | These are the State Board of Health Rabies Regulations. | Administrative | |
| Sentencia SU056/18 | Sentencia SU056/18 | The Constitutional Court held unconstitutional the decision of the administrative tribunal of Cundinamarca that allowed the city of Bogota to carry out a popular consultation intended to ask residents of Bogota whether they agreed to have bullfighting in the city. The court held that the decision to invalidate such a ruling was based on the principles of legal precedent and res jusdicata. The administrative court decision was against authority established in decisions A-025 of 2015, T-296 of 2013, C-889 of 2012, y C-666 of 2010 of the constitutional court, which held that the power to prohibit bullfighting rest in Congress and local governments only have police power. Allowing a mayor to carry out a popular consultation regarding the future of bullfighting is to go against authority established by the Constitutional Court, and it violates the right to due process and the right to be treated equally by the law. | Case | ||
| Death of the Monkey Ovechkin at Augusta University |
|
Policy | |||
| U.S. v. Hayashi | 22 F.3d 859 (1993) |
Appellant challenged the decision of the United States District Court for the District of Hawaii, which convicted him of taking a marine mammal in violation of the MMPA. The court reversed appellant's conviction for taking a marine mammal under the MMPA. It held that the MMPA and the regulations implementing the act did not make it a crime to take reasonable steps to deter porpoises from eating fish or bait off a fisherman's line. |
Case | ||
| Animal Legal Defense Fund v. Woodley | 640 S.E.2d 777; 2007 WL 475329 (N.C.App., 2007) | 181 N.C.App. 594 (2007) |
In this North Carolina Case, Barbara and Robert Woodley (defendants) appeal from an injunction forfeiting all rights in the animals possessed by defendants and the removal of the animals from defendants' control, and an order granting temporary custody of the animals to the Animal Legal Defense Fund. On 23 December 2004, plaintiff filed a complaint against defendants seeking preliminary and permanent injunctions under North Carolina's Civil Remedy for Protection of Animals statute (Section 19A). N.C. Gen.Stat. § 19A-1 et seq. (2005). Plaintiff alleged that defendants abused and neglected a large number of dogs (as well as some birds) in their possession. On appeal, defendants argue that Section 19A is unconstitutional in that it purports to grant standing to persons who have suffered no injury, and that it violates Article IV, Section 13 of the N.C. Constitution by granting standing through statute. The court held that Article IV, Section 13 merely “abolished the distinction between actions at law and suits in equity," rather than placing limitations on the legislature's ability to create actions by statute, contrary to defendants' interpretation. |
Case | |
| US - Livestock - To Promulgate Additional Regulations Implementing the Humane Methods of Slaughter Act to Prevent Incidents of Inhumane Handling and the Needless Suffering of Animals at Slaughter | Submitted by Animal Welfare Institute | Petitioner requests that the Secretary amend Humane Methods of Slaughter Act regulations to require all slaughter establishments take a systematic approach to animal welfare by preparing and maintaining a comprehensive, written humane handling plan, and make other changes that are needed to prevent unnecessary incidents of inhumane handling at slaughter. These amendments include requiring routine testing and maintenance of stunning equipment, the availability of backup stunning devices, and employee training in animal handling. The purpose of the requested action is to protect the welfare of animals during the slaughter process and to provide safer and better working conditions for persons engaged in the slaughter industry. Read the regulation the petitioner sought to amend. | Administrative | ||
| IN - Cattle Slaughter - THE MAHARASHTRA ANIMAL PRESERVATION ACT, 1976 | 9 of 1977 | The Act, specific to the western Indian state of Maharashtra, prohibits cow slaughter. Persons may also not slaughter other bovines such as bulls, bullocks, female buffaloes and buffalo calves without obtaining a certificate from the 'competent authority'. These animals may be slaughtered only at specified places. Committing an offence under the Act may lead to fines or imprisonment. | Statute |
