Results
| Title | Citation | Alternate Citation | Agency Citation | Summary | Type |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| CT - Horse - § 22-415. Inhumane transportation of equines. Penalty. Regulations | C.G.S.A. § 22-415 | CT ST § 22-415 | This Connecticut law makes it unlawful to carry any equine in an unnecessarily cruel or inhumane manner, or in a way and manner which might endanger the equine or knowingly and wilfully authorizes or permits such equine to be subjected to unnecessary torture, suffering or cruelty of any kind. Violation results in a fine of not less than one hundred dollars or more than five hundred dollars. [Also see the administrative regulations at https://www.animallaw.info/administrative/connecticut-equines-transportation-equines]. | Statute | |
| 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 | |
| Authorities confiscate night monkeys from FUCEP | Slideshow Images | ||||
| 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 | ||
| U.S. v. Gay-Lord | 799 F.2d 124 (4th Cir. 1986) |
Gay-Lord was found guilty of engaging in interstate commerce in striped bass (rockfish) in violation of regulations and statutes of the Commonwealth of Virginia after purchasing the fish from undercover FWS agents and later selling it to an interstate distributor. The Court held that conviction was proper despite undercover agents having transported fish from Virginia to trafficker's place of business in North Carolina. |
Case | ||
| Test Map | Other jurisdictions can be added here in the summary or ... | State map | |||
| Susan, Russell and Mary Phillips v. San Luis Obispo County Department of Animal Regulation | In this petition for a rehearing, respondents argued that the appellate court's decision (Phillips v. Department, 183 Cal.App.3d 372 (1986)) misstates crucial facts concerning the operation of the subject ordinance; that hearings required under the Atascadero ordinances apply to all dogs, not just strays; and that the appellate court may have been misled in its decision to conclude that no notice had been required. | Pleading | |||
| ID - Exotic Animals - Chapter 27. Rules Governing Deleterious Exotic Animals | IDAPA 02.04.27.100 | ID ADC 02.04.27.100 | These Idaho rules concern the possession, propagation, and exhibition of "deleterious exotic animals." No person may possess or propagate a deleterious exotic animal in the state, unless such person obtains a possession permit issued by the Administrator. Species of deleterious exotic animals include leopards, lions, non-pinioned mute swans, Russian wild boar, and all non-human primates, among others. | Administrative | |
| 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 | |
| New Hampshire Ins. Co. v. Farmer Boy AG, Inc. | Not Reported in F.Supp.2d, 2000 WL 33125128 (S.D.Ind.) |
Lightning struck a hog breeding facility, which disabled the ventilation system and killed pregnant sows. Plaintiff Insurance Company sued defendant for damages. The Court held that evidence of damages relating to the lost litters and subsequent generations was excluded because damages for future unborn litters are not recoverable when damages are recovered for the injury to or destruction of the pregnant sows. |
Case |