Results
| Title | Citation | Alternate Citation | Agency Citation | Summary | Type |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| World Law Overview |
Animal law is an emerging topic around the world. The Animal Legal & Historical Center houses laws, cases, and scholarly discussions on animal laws topics from across the globe. There are numerous ways to get to materials from countries around the world. |
Basic page | |||
| Switzerland - Cruelty - Federal Act and Ordinance on Animal Cruelty | Swiss Animal Protection Ordinance 1981 |
The following is one of two pieces of Swiss legislation concerning animal welfare. It is highly comprehensive and covers all aspects of animal welfare including but not limited to scientific research, farming, treatment of pets, national and international animal sales. This Act clearly states that no one shall unjustifiably expose animals to pain, suffering, physical injury or fear. Regulations on Animal Welfare based on the Swiss Federal Act on Animal Protection. This piece of legislation is comprehensive, including laws on animal husbandry, animal research, companion animals, breeding, transport and slaughter. |
Statute | ||
| AZ - Leash Laws - Article 6. Animal Control. | A. R. S. § 11-1012 | AZ ST § 11-1012 | This Arizona laws provides generally that no female dog in her breeding season or vicious dog may be allowed to go at large. It further delineates the state's leash requirements for dogs, including during times of rabies quarantines, in state parks, and at public schools. Exceptions under the law include the training of livestock dogs and hunting dogs, among others. | Statute | |
| US - Marine Mammals - Taking and Importing Marine Mammals; Taking Marine Mammals Incidental | 2001 WL 929542 (F.R.) | FR Doc. 01-20647 (2001) |
NMFS, upon application from the University of California San Diego, Scripps Institution of Oceanography (Scripps), is issuing regulations to govern the unintentional take of a small number of marine mammals incidental to the continued operation of a low frequency (LF) sound source by Scripps. |
Administrative | |
| CT - Exotic - Sec. 26-55-6. Importation, possession or liberation of wild birds, mammals, reptiles, amphibians and invertebrates | CT ADC § 26-55-6 | Regs. Conn. State Agencies § 26-55-6 | This Connecticut regulation (effective March 1, 2012) places restrictions on who may import or possess certain categories of wild animals in the state. The regulation puts wild animals into one of four categories: Category One, Two, Three, or Four Wild Animals. With regard to Great Apes, a member within the family Hominidae (including, but not limited to, gorilla, chimpanzee and orangutan) is a Category One Animal. No person, except a municipal park, zoo, public nonprofit aquarium, nature center,museum, exhibitor licensed or registered with the United States Department of Agriculture, laboratory registered with the United States Department of Agriculture, or research facility registered with the United States Department of Agriculture, shall import or possess any Category One Wild Animal. | Administrative | |
| Illinois 1869: Cruelty to Animals Statute | 1869 Ill. Laws 3 | Historical Law: The first part of this Statute details the incorporation of the Illinois Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals. The second part of the statute describes various laws concerning the treatment of animals. | Statute | ||
| Boulahanis v. Prevo's Family Market, Inc. | 230 Mich.App. 131 (1998) | 583 N.W.2d 509 (Mich.App.,1998) | Michigan Court of Appeals affirmed that the Federal Meat Inspection Act prevents states from adding or modifying federal requirements on meat producers. Claims that purchased meat products are adulterated must be based on federal standards, not Michigan standards. The United States Department of Agriculture elected not to address E. coli contamination, thus Michigan may not impose liability on manufacturers for not addressing possible E. coli contamination. | Case | |
| IN - Farriers - PREVENTION OF CRUELTY TO ANIMALS (LICENSING OF FARRIERS) RULES, 1965 | Licensing of Farriers Rules, 1965 | The Rules, drafted under Section 38(2) of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960, regulate farriers (persons who attach shoes to hooves of animals). It is mandatory for farriers to obtain a license. | Statute | ||
| In Defense of Animals v. Cleveland Metroparks Zoo | 785 F.Supp. 100 (N.D. Ohio, 1991) |
This case involves a challenge by several organizations to the proposed move of Timmy, a lowland gorilla, from the Cleveland Metroparks Zoo to the Bronx Zoo in New York for the purposes of mating Timmy with female gorillas at the Bronx Zoo. Plaintiffs filed this lawsuit on October 25, 1991, in the Court of Common Pleas of Cuyahoga County, and moved for a temporary restraining order. The District Court held that the claim was preempted under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) and the Animal Welfare Act (AWA) and that plaintiffs failed to state a claim under the ESA. Further, the court held that plaintiffs had no private cause of action under the AWA. |
Case | ||
| Am. Anti-Vivisection Soc'y et. al. v. USDA et. al. | 946 F.3d 615 (D.C. Cir. 2020) | Congress passed the Animal Welfare Act (“AWA”) in 1966 to insure that animals intended for use in research facilities, for exhibition purposes, or for use as pets were provided humane care and treatment. Initially the definition of the word “animal” excluded birds according to the USDA. In 2002, Congress amended the AWA to make it known that birds were to be protected as well. The USDA promised to publish a proposed rule for public comment once it determined how to best regulate birds and adopt appropriate standards. Eighteen years later, the USDA has yet to issue any standards regarding birds. The American Anti-Vivisection Society and the Avian Welfare Coalition sued to compel the USDA to either issue bird-specific standards or to apply its general standards to birds. These animal-rights groups argued that the USDA’s utter failure to promulgate any bird specific standards amounted to arbitrary and capricious agency action. Their second argument was that USDA unlawfully withheld and unreasonably delayed action. The district court dismissed their complaint for failure to state a claim to which the animal-rights groups appealed. The Court of Appeals found that the AWA, when it was amended in 2002, required the USDA to issue standards governing the humane treatment, not of animals generally, but of animals as a defined category of creatures including birds not bred for use in research. The USDA failed to take “discrete action” issuing standards to protect birds that the AWA requires it to take. The Court ultimately affirmed the district court as to the arbitrary and capricious claim but reversed and remanded as to the unreasonable delay claim to determine whether the issuance of bird-specific standards has been unreasonably delayed. | Case |