Results
| Title | Citation | Alternate Citation | Agency Citation | Summary | Type |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Código Penal para el Estado Libre y Soberano de Tlaxcala | Código Penal de Tlaxcala | In 2022, Decreto No. 160 modified the Criminal Code by adding Title XX, “Of the Crimes Committed Against Animals.” It has only one title: “Crimes Against the Life, Integrity, and Dignity of Animals,” which comprises articles 435, 436, 437, 438, 439, 440, 441, and 442. Article 435 deals with acts of mistreatment and animal cruelty. | Statute | ||
| U.S. v. Hardman (On Rehearing En Banc) | 2002 WL 1790584 (only Westlaw citation currently available) |
The Hardman and Wilgus cases are remanded for factfinding where the record was limited as to whether the government employed the least restrictive means to support its compelling interests of protecting eagles and Native American culture. On the Saenz motion for return of eagle feathers to a non-federally recognized Indian religious practitioner, the court holds that the government failed to support its assertions that opening the permit system to all adherents of Indian religions would compromise the eagle population or destroy federal trust obligations to Native American tribes/culture. For discussion of the BGEPA and religious challenges, see Detailed Discussion . |
Case | ||
| U.S. v. CITGO Petroleum Corp. | 801 F.3d 477 (5th Cir. 2015) | 2015 WL 5201185 (5th Cir., 2015) | CITGO was convicted of multiple violations of the Clean Air Act and its regulations, and the Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918 (“MBTA”). CITGO urged the 5th Circuit to reverse the Clean Air Act convictions because the district court erroneously instructed the jury about the scope of a regulation concerning “oil-water separators.” CITGO also contended that the MBTA convictions were infirm because the district court misinterpreted the statute as covering unintentional bird kills. The 5th Circuit agreed with both contentions, holding that CITGO's equalization tanks and air floatation device were not oil-water separators under the Clean Air Act's regulations and that “taking” migratory birds involved only “conduct intentionally directed at birds, such as hunting and trapping, not commercial activity that unintentionally and indirectly caused migratory bird deaths. The district court’s decision was reversed and remanded with instructions. | Case | |
| ALDF v. Quigg | 932 F.2d 920(Fed. Cir. 1991) | 1991 U.S. App. LEXIS 7884 | This case establishes the relative inability of third parties to challenge the veracity of an existing patent for genetically engineered animals. Judicial review is rare in such cases because third party plaintiffs, under the Administrative Procedures Act, lack standing to challenge the Patent and Trademark Office's interpretation of existing law. | Case | |
| City of Marion v. Schoenwald | 631 N.W.2d 213 (S.D.,2001) | 2001 SD 95 |
To keep excessive numbers of large dogs from becoming a public nuisance, the City of Marion, South Dakota passed an ordinance that, among other things, limited households to four dogs, only two of which could weigh over 25 pounds. Schoenwald owned three dogs: one shepherd-collie mix weighing 75 pounds and two golden retrievers, weighing 30 pounds and 20 pounds. She was then notified that by housing three dogs weighing over 25 pounds she was in violation of the ordinance. She failed to comply with the City's order to remove one dog and was issued a citation. The Supreme Court reversed the lower court's ruling in Schoenwald's favor and found that South Dakota law permits municipalities broad power to regulate the keeping of dogs; thus the weight limitation included in the City's comprehensive pet ordinance was within its authority. |
Case | |
| IA - Restaurant - Inspection standards for food establishments. | Iowa Admin. Code 481-31.1(137F) | This Iowa regulation was amended in 2020 by adding subsection 31.1(14) to allow "pet dogs" on exterior premises of a food establishment, including outdoor patio and outdoor dining areas, provided the food establishment meets all of the listed requirements. These requirements include: having a separate outdoor entrance; not allowing food preparation in the outdoor area or storage of reusable customer utensils; mandating that food or water dishes provided to dogs are single-use and disposable or come from the pet owners themselves; prohibiting contact between employees and the dogs; making sure the outdoor area is kept clean; ensuring that the area is immediately cleaned and sanitized if body fluids are excreted; making sure the outdoor area is not fully enclosed; requiring the removal of disruptive pet dogs; and posting of rules at the entrance. These rules include the leashing of dogs at all times, the prohibiting of dogs in the interior of the food establishment and on furniture, and the requirement to notify employees if the dog deposits any body fluid. | Administrative | ||
| US - PPIA Regulations - Operating, Ante and Post Mortem Inspection | 9 C.F.R. 381 | The following Poultry Products Inspection Act regulations detail the provisions for operating a poultry slaughterhouse, and for ante and post mortem inspection. | Administrative | ||
| State v. Neal | State v. Neal, 27 S.E. 81 (N.C. 1897) |
The defendant was convicted under North Carolina's cruelty to animal statute for the killing of his neighbor's chickens. The defendant appealed to the Supreme Court because the trial court refused to give some of his instructions to the jury. The Supreme Court that the lower court was correct and affirmed. |
Case | ||
| ID - Rabies - 500. DOGS AND CATS | ID ADC 02.04.21.500 | Idaho Admin. Code r. 02.04.21.500 | All dogs and cats imported into the state of Idaho must be accompanied by a CVI. Dogs and cats twelve (12) weeks of age or older shall be vaccinated for rabies. | Administrative | |
| State v. Weeks | 1992 Ohio App. LEXIS 1090 | Defendant was convicted of violating Ohio's animal fighting statute, and appealed. He challenged the conviction, arguing that the statute was unconstitutionally vague and overbroad. The court upheld the conviction. The court ruled that although a portion of the statute was overly vague and broad, that portion was severable from the remainder. The court also held that defendant did not demonstrate that the statute was unconstitutional as applied to him. | Case |