Results
Displaying 6571 - 6580 of 6638
| Title | Citation | Alternate Citation | Agency Citation | Summary | Type |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| US - Slaughter - Ante Mortem Inspection | 9 C.F.R. 309 | Progulmated under the Federal Meat Inspection Act (FIMA), Part 309 of the FIMA regulations covering livestock inspection state that alll livestock offered for slaughter in an official establishment shall be examined and inspected on the day of, and before, slaughter. Such ante-mortem inspection shall be made in pens on the premises of the establishment at which the livestock are offered for slaughter. If an establishment fails to present animals for ante-mortem inspection in accordance with 9 CFR 309.1, inspection program personnel will be unable to determine that carcasses are not adulterated during postmortem inspection, and therefore cannot permit the carcasses to be marked as inspected and passed. Livestock may also be determined to be non-ambulatory disabled, US suspect, or US Condemened. Read a petition that requests the Food Safety and Inspection Service amend 9 C.F.R. § 309.3 by adding a provision: ―(f) Non-ambulatory disabled pigs that are offered for slaughter must be condemned and humanely euthanized in accordance with § 309.13. | Administrative | ||
| US - Fur, dog and cat fur products - Chapter 4. Tariff Act of 1930. | 19 U.S.C.A. § 1308 | This federal statute prohibits commerce in dog or cat fur. Specifically, the statute forbids import into, or export from, the United States of any dog or cat fur product; or the introduction into interstate commerce, manufacture for introduction into interstate commerce, sell, trade, or advertise in interstate commerce, offer to sell, or transport or distribute in interstate commerce in the United States, any dog or cat fur product. The exception under the act is for the importation, exportation, or transportation, for noncommercial purposes, of a personal pet that is deceased, including a pet preserved through taxidermy. | Statute | ||
| AR - Ordinances - § 14-16-701. River and improvement district | A.C.A. § 14-16-701 | AR ST § 14-16-701 | This Arkansas statute provides that, upon the written request of the governing body of a suburban improvement district (as defined by statute), a county may by ordinance control and regulate dogs and cats within all or any part of the suburban improvement district. This statute does not elaborate on the confines of such ordinances, so it is assumed the subject matter is constrained only through preemption. | Statute | |
| Santa Paula Animal Rescue Center, Inc. v. County of Los Angeles | 313 Cal. Rptr. 3d 566 (2023), reh'g denied (Oct. 16, 2023), review denied (Dec. 13, 2023) | 95 Cal.App.5th 630 (Cal.App. 2 Dist., 2023) | This case was brought by plaintiff-appellants, several no-kill animal shelters, against defendant-appellee the County of Los Angeles. Plaintiffs filed a petition for writ of mandate against defendant seeking to compel the release of impounded dogs scheduled for euthanasia to plaintiffs. The court sustained defendant’s demurrer without leave to amend, and this appeal followed. Plaintiffs argue on appeal that the Hayden Act imposes a duty on defendant to release the dogs scheduled for euthanasia to plaintiffs. First, the court asked whether defendant had discretion to refuse to release, and then to euthanize, a dog deemed to have behavioral problems when release has been requested by a non-profit animal adoption or rescue organization? Second, the court asked if defendant had discretion to determine and impose requirements for organizations that claim to be animal rescue or adoption organizations to qualify as such, beyond simply ensuring that the organizations are non-profits under section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code? The court examined the relevant code, which stated that “any stray dog that is impounded pursuant to this division shall, before the euthanasia of that animal, be released to a nonprofit” and agreed with plaintiffs’ argument that the use of the word shall indicates that the legislature intended to impose a duty on defendant to release these dogs upon request to qualified nonprofit animal rescue or adoption agencies. The court also concluded that the demurrer was improperly granted as defendant lacked discretion to withhold and euthanize a dog based upon its determination that the animal has a behavioral problem or is not adoptable or treatable. The court agreed, however, that defendant had discretion to determine whether and how a non-profit organization qualifies as an animal adoption or rescue organization. The court reversed the judgment of the trial court, vacated the trial court’s order sustaining the demurrer without leave to amend, and remanded to the trial court. | Case | |
| CA - Dangerous - California Dangerous Dog Statutes | West's Ann. Cal. Food & Agric. Code § 31601 - 31683; West's Ann. Cal. Civ. Code § 3342 - 3342.5; West's Ann. Cal. Health & Safety Code § 121685; West's Ann. Cal. Penal Code § 398 - 399.5 | CA FOOD & AG § 31601 - 31683; CA CIVIL § 3342 - 3342.5; CA HLTH & S § 121685;CA PENAL § 398 - 399.5 | This is the California statute for the rules and regulations regarding dangerous and/or vicious dogs. It defines what constitutes a dangerous and/or vicious dog, what is to be done with said dog(s), and provides a model provision for municipalities to follow. The other set of provisions contains the relevant dog bite law. California has strict liability for dog bites such that liability is imposed regardless of the former viciousness of the dog or the owner's knowledge of such viciousness. | Statute | |
| EU - Farming - Council Directive 2007/43/EC laying down minimum rules for the protection of chickens kept for meat production | 2007/43/EC |
Community measures regulate the management of holdings that rear chickens for meat production in order to improve animal welfare, particularly for chickens kept on intensive farms. |
Statute | ||
| People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, Inc. v. N. Carolina Farm Bureau Fed'n, Inc. | 60 F.4th 815 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 144 S. Ct. 325, 217 L. Ed. 2d 170 (2023), and cert. denied sub nom. Stein v. People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, Inc., 144 S. Ct. 326, 217 L. Ed. 2d 170 (2023) | Several animal welfare organizations including PETA sought to conduct undercover animal cruelty investigations in North Carolina, but were unable to do so because North Carolina's Property Protection Act prohibited employees from entering nonpublic areas of employer's premises to record or remove information and using that information to breach their duty of loyalty. PETA and other plaintiffs argue that the act violates their protected First Amendment rights and functions as a discriminatory speech restriction. North Carolina argues that the restrictions on speech are incidental, and the act protects against trespass and disloyalty. The United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina dismissed the complaint and the organizations appealed. The Court of Appeals then reversed and remanded. On remand here, the District Court held that the information gathered by the animal welfare organizations was protected speech and, thus, subject to strict scrutiny. . | Case | ||
| People v. Curcio | 874 N.Y.S.2d 723 (N.Y.City Crim.Ct.,2008) | 22 Misc.3d 907, 2008 N.Y. Slip Op. 28499 |
In this New York case, Defendant moved to dismiss the complaint of Overdriving, Torturing and Injuring Animals and Failure to Provide Proper Sustenance for Animals (Agriculture and Markets Law § 353), a class A misdemeanor. The charge resulted from allegedly refusing to provide medical care for his dog, Sophie, for a prominent mass protruding from her rear end. This Court held that the statute constitutional as applied, the complaint facially sufficient, and that the interests of justice do not warrant dismissal. Defendant argued that the Information charges Defendant with failure to provide medical care for a dog, and that A.M.L. § 353 should not be read to cover this situation. However, the Court found that the complaint raises an “omission or neglect” permitting unjustifiable pain or suffering, which is facially sufficient. |
Case | |
| AZ - Wildlife - Taking and Handling of Wildlife. Article 1. General Regulations | A. R. S. § 17-301 to 320 | AZ ST § 17-301 to 320 | The following statutes comprise Arizona's wildlife code. Among the provisions include methods of taking wildlife, hunting restrictions, the state's hunter interference laws, and laws specific to mountain lions, bears, and jaguars. | Statute | |
| Flathead-Lolo-Bitterroot Citizen Task Force v. Montana | ---- F.Supp.3d ----, 2023 WL 8064884 (D. Mont. Nov. 21, 2023) | No. CV 23-101-M-DWM, 2023 WL 8064884 (D.Mont., 2023) | This case was brought by several environmental organizations against the Montana Fish and Wildlife Commission to challenge the approval or regulations that authorize the trapping and snaring of wolves within grizzly bear habitat in Montana. The grizzly bear is listed as threatened under the Endangered Species Act (ESA), and the Montana trapping regulations allow wolf hunters to use foothold traps large enough to capture grizzly bears. Grizzly bears rely heavily on their front and back paws to hunt for food, so crippling their limbs with these traps will lead to the incidental killing of grizzly bears from starvation. Plaintiffs contend that allowing the trapping of wolves in grizzly bear territory is in violation of § 9 of the ESA, as it will lead to the incidental unlawful taking of grizzly bears. Plaintiffs sought a preliminary injunction to enjoin the start of the wolf trapping season, raised questions on the merits, and established a reasonable threat of harm to grizzly bears if the trapping and snaring of wolves is allowed in their habitat. On the merits of the claim, although defendants could prove that no grizzly bears had been killed with such traps in Montana for several years, the court found that plaintiffs succeeded on the merits as there was evidence of grizzly bears being killed by such traps in adjacent states. Plaintiffs also showed that there was a likelihood of harm to grizzly bears, with evidence that these traps will lead to the death of grizzly bears. The court granted plaintiff’s motion for preliminary injunction in part and denied in part, and enjoined the Montana Fish and Wildlife Commission from authorizing wolf trapping and snaring. | Case |