Results
| Title | Citation | Alternate Citation | Agency Citation | Summary | Type |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| AL - Leash - When dogs permitted in areas; liability of owners of dogs at large in areas (wildlife management areas) | Ala. Code 1975 § 9-11-305 - 307 | AL ST § 9-11-305 to 307 | This Alabama statute provides that no dog shall be permitted except on leash within any wildlife management area except in accordance with the rules and regulations promulgated by the Commissioner of Conservation and Natural Resources. The owner of any dog at large within any wildlife management area shall be guilty of a misdemeanor. | Statute | |
| State v. Mita | 245 P.3d 458 (Hawai', 2010) | 2010 WL 5483427 (Hawai', 2010), 124 Hawai'i 385 (2010) |
Defendant, an owner of two dogs, both boxers, was charged with animal nuisance in violation of Revised Ordinances of Honolulu section 7-2.3. Mita’s counsel objected to the oral charge at trial, arguing "that the arraignment is [not] specific enough to put the defendant specifically on notice of what part of the . . . ordinance she’s being charged with." The district court denied Mita’s motion for judgment of acquittal and sentenced her to pay a $50 fine. Mita appealed. The Intermediate Court of Appeals vacated the judgment of the district court. On certiorari, the Hawaii Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the Intermediate Court of Appeals and remanded the case, finding that the definition of animal nuisance in section 7-2.2 does not create an additional essential element of the offense; and, second, the definition of "animal nuisance" is consistent with its commonly understood meaning. |
Case | |
| US - AWA - Senate Report on 1966 Animal Welfare Act | Senate Report 1281 |
The Committee on Commerce, to which was referred the bill (H.R. 13881) to authorize the Secretary of Agriculture to regulate the transportation, sale, and handling of dogs and cats intended to be used for purposes of research or experimentation, and for other purposes, having considered the same, reports favorably thereon with amendments and recommends that the bill as amended do pass. |
Administrative | ||
| Walker-Serrano ex rel. Walker v. Leonard | 325 F.3d 412 (C.A.3 (Pa.),2003) | 175 Ed. Law Rep. 93 |
Public school student circulated a petition during class and recess that opposed a school field trip to the circus. School officials prevented her from circulating the petition, and she complained of a violation of her First Amendment right to free speech. The Court of Appeals affirmed summary judgment for the school, holding that the student's rights had not been violated because a school may regulate the times and circumstances a petition may be circulated when it interferes with educational goals or the rights of other students. |
Case | |
| LA - Research - LSA-R.S. 51:771 | LSA-R.S. 51:771 - 777 | This Louisiana set of laws, enacted in 2022, makes it unlawful for a manufacturer to sell or offer for sale in this state a cosmetic that utilized cosmetic animal testing during the development or manufacture of the cosmetic, if the cosmetic animal testing was conducted by the manufacturer, any supplier of the manufacturer, or any person or business hired or contracted by the manufacturer. Limited exemptions exist. A manufacturer that sells or offers for sale a cosmetic in violation commits a civil violation punishable by a fine of not more than $1,000 for the first day of each violation and an additional fine of $500 for each day that each violation continues. | Statute | ||
| SD - Facility dog - 23A-24-10. Certified therapeutic dogs--Definitions | S D C L § 23A-24-10 - 12 | SD ST § 23A-24-10 - 12 | In 2020, South Dakota enacted provisions for the use of "certified therapeutic dogs" for certain witnesses (children or those with developmental disabilities as defined in the law) in criminal proceedings. A certified therapeutic dog is defined as a dog that has received the requisite training or certification and is registered with Therapy Dogs Incorporated, Therapy Dogs International, Assistance Dogs International, or an equivalent organization to perform the duties associated with therapy dogs in places such as hospitals, nursing homes, and other facilities where the emotional benefits of therapy dogs are recognized. Before using the dog, the party desiring to utilize the presence of a certified therapeutic dog must file a motion containing listed information outside the presence of the jury. A handler may accompany the dog and sit behind or next to the witness stand. | Statute | |
| CA - Importation - Chapter 2. Of Other and Miscellaneous Offenses (653o - 653r) | West's Ann. Cal. Penal Code § 653o - 653r | CA PENAL § 653o - 653r | These California laws relate to the importation of certain animals parts for commercial purposes. Under the law, it is unlawful to import into this state for commercial purposes, to possess with intent to sell, or to sell within the state, the dead body, or any part or product thereof, of any polar bear, leopard, ocelot, tiger, cheetah, jaguar, sable antelope, wolf (Canis lupus), zebra, whale, cobra, python, sea turtle, colobus monkey, kangaroo, vicuna, sea otter, free-roaming feral horse, dolphin or porpoise (Delphinidae), Spanish lynx, or elephant. It is unlawful to import into this state for commercial purposes, to possess with intent to sell, or to sell within the state, the dead body, or any part or product thereof, of any crocodile or alligator. Commencing January 1, 2022, it is unlawful to import into this state for commercial purposes, to possess with intent to sell, or to sell within the state, the dead body, or any part or product thereof, of an iguana, skink, caiman, hippopotamus, or a Teju, Ring, or Nile lizard. Section 653p makes it unlawful to posses with the intent to sell any part or dead body of any species on the federal endangered species list or species covered under the MMPA. Section 653q makes it illegal to import for commercial purposes, to possess with intent to sell, or to sell within the state, the dead body, or any part or product thereof, of any seal. | Statute | |
| EU - Farming - Council Directive concerning the protection of animals kept for farming purposes | 98/58/EC; Official Journal L 221 , 08/08/1998 P. 0023 - 0027 |
This Directive applies to animals (including fish, reptiles and amphibians) reared or kept for the production of food, wool, skin or fur or for other farming purposes. It does not apply to wild animals, animals intended for use in sporting or cultural events (shows), experimental or laboratory animals or invertebrate animals. The Member States must adopt provisions to ensure that the owners or keepers of animals look after the welfare of their animals and see that they are not caused any unnecessary pain, suffering or injury. |
Statute | ||
| Lac Courte Oreilles Band of Lake Superior Chippewa Indians v. State of Wisconsin | 740 F.Supp. 1400 (W.D.Wis. 1990) |
Action was brought to determine Indian tribe members' rights related to off-reservation hunting of white-tailed deer, fisher and other furbearing animals, and small game within the area of the state ceded to the United States by the plaintiff tribes. The Court held that Indians and non-Indians were each entitled to one half of game harvest within each harvesting area rather than as a whole territory to accommodate the longer Indian hunting season. With regard to hunting on private land in the ceded area, the Court held that plaintiffs' members have no more rights than non-Indian hunters to hunt or to trap on private lands, as tribal members who are hunting or trapping on private lands are still subject to state hunting and trapping regulations. The Court also held that the state could properly prohibit Indians from hunting deer during the summer and at night due to the safety risk to humans. |
Case | ||
| Miccosukee Tribe of Indians of Florida v. U.S. | 697 F.Supp.2d 1324 (S.D.Fla., 2010) | 2010 WL 1037962 (S.D.Fla.) |
This case examines the requirements surrounding the issuance of an Incidental Take Statement (ITS), a statement that authorizes harm to an endangered species, but that must include a trigger for reviewing the decision (known as “re-consultation”) at the point when there is a risk of jeopardizing the species. The trigger must be a numerical trigger describing the “take” (e.g., the capturing or killing of members of an endangered species) in terms of specific population data unless it is impractical to do so. Specifically, this case explores whether the Army Corps of Engineers and FTS were able to use an ecological surrogate in place of a numerical trigger in an ITS that was promulgated in the process of conservation work in the Everglades. This conservation work involved manipulating water levels in the Everglades and impacted the viability of three species protected under the Endangered Species Act (the Cape Sable seaside sparrow, the Everglade snail kite, and the wood stork), as well as the well-being of the Miccosukee Tribe of Indians. |
Case |