Results
| Title | Citation | Alternate Citation | Agency Citation | Summary | Type |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| CA - Fur - § 996. Fur bearing animals raised in captivity; ownership; protection of law | West's Ann. Cal. Civ. Code § 996 | CA CIVIL § 996 | This California law provides that any furbearing animal whether born in captivity or brought into captivity for the purpose of pelting is regarded as personal property, the same as other domestic animals. | Statute | |
| EU - Farming - Commission Directive 2002/4/EC on the registration of establishments keeping laying hens | Commission Directive 2002/4/EC |
This EU commission directive concerns Council Directive 1999/74/EC on the registration of establishments keeping laying hens. It mandates that Member States establish a registration system for egg producers covered by Directive 199/74/EC. |
Statute | ||
| Argentina, Ley 18.819, 1970 | LEY N° 18.819 | This law contains the provisions for the procedures for the slaughter of animals. More specifically the slaughter of animals of the bovine, equine, ovine, porcine and caprine species. However, Article 2 establishes that executive power may extend these provisions to the slaughter of birds, rabbits, and other minor species. Slaughterhouses and meat packing plants in Argentina must comply with the desensitization requirements and procedures established by the executive power. This law prohibits the use of the clubs in slaughtering. The veterinary inspection services of the national and of the provincial or municipal administrations are the control entities for the compliance of this law. The Secretary of State for Agriculture and Livestock is the entity that imposes sanctions to establishments subject to national veterinary inspection and those that violate these provisions. | Statute | ||
| Syracuse Book 1 Symposium on Animal Law |
Syracuse Law Review
|
Policy | |||
| AZ - License and Vaccination Ordinances - Exemption of cities, towns and counties (dogs/animals) | A. R. S. § 11-1018 | AZ ST § 11-1018 | This Arizona statute exempts cities or towns from the provisions of this article if they impose a license fee and vaccination on dogs by ordinance, provided that such ordinance is equal to or more stringent than the provisions of this article. Further, the provisions of this article shall not apply to counties which regulate the running at large of dogs in the unincorporated areas of the county by ordinance provided that such ordinance is equal to or more stringent than the provisions of this article. | Statute | |
| Frank v. Animal Haven, Inc. | 107 A.D.3d 574 (N.Y.A.D. 1 Dept.,2013.) | 967 N.Y.S.2d 370, 2013 N.Y. Slip Op. 04711 |
Plaintiff was bitten by the dog that she adopted from Animal Haven, Inc. and sued that entity for personal injuries stemming from the bite. In affirming the decision to dismiss the complaint, this court noted that the adopting parties signed a contract a the time of adoption where they undertook a "lifetime commitment" for the responsible care of the dog. While the contract stipulated that Animal Haven had the right to have the dog returned if the plaintiff breached the contract, this did not reserve a right of ownership of the dog. Further, the contract also explicitly relieved Animal Haven of liability once the dog was in the possession of the adoptive parties. |
Case | |
| Massachusetts General Law Statutes 1860-1872: Chapter 344: Sections 1-3 | Mass. Gen. L. ch. 344 (1869) | The Massachusetts law from 1869 stated in Chapter 344 concerns the treatment of animals. The first section is a generic animal cruelty act. The second section details the punishment for owners of animals that allow their animals to be treated cruelly by a third party. The third section concerns the treatment of animals during transportation. | Statute | ||
| Concerned Dog Owners of California v. City of Los Angeles | 123 Cal.Rptr.3d 774 (Cal.App.2 Dist., 2011) | 194 Cal.App.4th 1219 (2011); 2011 WL 1601919 (Cal.App.2 Dist., 2011) |
Dog owners mounted a constitutional challenge to a Los Angeles municipal ordinance that required all dogs and cats within the city to be sterilized. The Court of Appeal held that the ordinance did not violate the owners’ freedom of association rights, free speech rights. or equal protection rights. The court held that it was not unconstitutionally vague, was not outside of the city's police powers, did not vest unfettered discretion in city officials, did not constitute an unconstitutional prior restraint or an unconstitutional taking. Finally, the law did not violate individual liberties under the California Constitution. |
Case | |
| US - Wolf - Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Final Rule Designating | 2007 WL 408325 (F.R.) |
Establishes the Western Great Lakes Distinct Population Segment (DPS) of the gray wolf and removes the DPS from the list of endangered and threatened wildlife. |
Administrative | ||
| Portugal - Cruelty - Portugal Animal Welfare Law | 92/95 (Protection of Animals Act) |
This is general national legislation of Portugal for the protection and regulation of animal welfare. There is delegation of authority to grant or deny the use of animals in many commercial settings. Standards are minimal within the act itself. |
Statute |
