Results
| Title | Citation | Alternate Citation | Summary | Type |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| IN RE: DONALD STUMBO, D/B/A STUMBO FARMS | 43 Agric. Dec. 1079 (U.S.D.A.) | 1984 WL 54981 (U.S.D.A.) |
Imposition of $4,000 civil penalty was appropriate under 7 USCS § 2149(b) where respondent committed numerous, serious violations of Animal Welfare Act, respondent handled large number of animals, and violations continued after respondent was advised in writing of violations and given opportunity to correct them. |
Case |
| UK - Dangerous Dogs - Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 | 1991 CHAPTER 65 |
An Act to prohibit persons from having in their possession or custody dogs belonging to types bred for fighting; to impose restrictions in respect of such dogs pending the coming into force of the prohibition; to enable restrictions to be imposed in relation to other types of dog which present a serious danger to the public; to make further provision for securing that dogs are kept under proper control; and for connected purposes. |
Statute | |
| DR. ELLEN LEVINE et al., Plaintiffs, v. MIKE JOHANNS, Defendants | This action challenges the exclusion of chickens, turkeys, and other birds from the protections of the federal Humane Slaughter Act (HSA). The Levine plaintiffs’ complaint challenges a USDA Notice issued on September 28, 2005, titled “Treatment of Live Poultry Before Slaughter.” The Notice states that there is no federal statute governing the humane slaughter of poultry, but recommends that the poultry industry adopt voluntary measures to improve slaughter practices. Plaintiffs all contend that by excluding these animals from the protections of the Act exposes them to greater risk of food-borne illness. The inhumane methods of slaughtering the birds have been linked in scientific studies to greater incidence of food-borne pathogens in the meat. In their complaint, Plaintiffs request an order finding the act of excluding poultry from the HSA is arbitrary and capricious, and enjoining the USDA from excluding poultry species from the HSA. In its order regarding defendant’s motion to dismiss, the court found that plaintiffs credibly alleged that they face an imminent exposure to heightened risk that they will become ill from consuming inhumanely slaughtered animals. Thus, defendant’s motion to dismiss the consumer claims was denied. | Pleading | ||
| Save the Pine Bush, Inc. v. Common Council of City of Albany | 56 A.D.3d 32, 865 N.Y.S.2d 365 (N.Y.A.D. 3 Dept.,2008) | 2008 WL 4500223 (N.Y.A.D. 3 Dept.), 2008 N.Y. Slip Op. 07703 |
An Organization dedicated to the protection of the Karner Blue Butterfly and other species that live in an area of land used as a nature preserve brought challenge against the City Common Council’s; (“Council”) approval of a Developer’s rezoning application for the land. The Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Third Department, New York, held that the Organization had standing to bring suit, because the Organization showed the existence of an actual injury different from that of the general public, due to the Organization’s regular use of the preserve, at least one member’s nearby residency to the preserve, and the Organization’s historic involvement in the protection and preservation of the preserve. (2010 - Order Reversed by Save the Pine Bush, Inc. v. Common Council of City of Albany, 13 N.Y.3d 297, 918 N.E.2d 917, 890 N.Y.S.2d 405, 2009 N.Y. Slip Op. 07667 (N.Y. Oct 27, 2009) (NO. 134)). |
Case |
| NV - Housing - 116.318. Right of units’ owners to keep pet | N. R. S. 116.318 | NV ST 116.318 | This Nevada law enacted in 2019 states that the executive board of an association shall not and the governing documents of that association must not prohibit a unit's owner from keeping at least one pet within such physical portion of the common-interest community as that owner has a right to occupy and use exclusively. | Statute |
| Animal Law Index Volume 1 |
Animal Law Review, Volume 1 (1995)ARTICLESTIME FOR A SHARPER LEGAL FOCUS |
Policy | ||
| Southeastern Community College v. Davis | 99 S.Ct. 2361 (1979) |
Applicant to nursing program brought suit against the college alleging discrimination under Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act for denying her acceptance to the program based on her physical disability of being deaf. The college alleged that the applicant was not "otherwise qualified" under the statute because, even if provided accommodations for her hearing disability, she would be unable to safely participate in the clinical training program. The court held that "otherwise qualified" under the statute means that a person is qualified for the program "in spite of" the handicap, and that the applicant here was not otherwise qualified for the program. The court also held that a program authority is not required to ignore the disability of the applicant when determining eligibility for the program. Rather, the statute only requires that the disabled person not be denied the benefits of the program solely because of the disability. |
Case | |
| UT - Wolves - Chapter 29. Wolf Management Act | U.C.A. 1953 § 23A-15-101 - 202 (formerly cited as U.C.A. 1953 § 23-29-101 - 102; § 23-29-201 - 202) | UT ST § 23A-15-101 - 202 (formerly cited as UT ST § 23-29-101 - 202) | Under the Utah Wolf Management Act, the division shall manage wolves to prevent the establishment of a viable pack in all areas of the state where the wolf is not listed as threatened or endangered under the Endangered Species Act until the wolf is completely delisted under the act and removed from federal control in the entire state. | Statute |
| Coyote v. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service | (no F.Supp. citation) 1994 E.D. California |
Defendant brought a motion after the USFWS denied his application to obtain eagle feathers for religious use where defendant failed to obtain certification from the Bureau of Indian Affairs that he was a member of a federally-recognized tribe. The court held that this requirement is both contrary to the plain reading of that regulation and arbitrary and capricious. For discussion on formerly recognized tribes and the BGEPA, see Detailed Discussion. |
Case | |
| AU - Livestock - Australian Meat and Live-stock Industry Act 1997 | Act No. 206 of 1997 |
The purpose of this Act is to control meat and live-stock exports both within and outside Australia. 'Live-stock' includes cattle, calves, sheep, lambs and goats, however this definition is not exhaustive and may include other animals if prescribed. The Act covers export licences, quotas and enforcement. It also outlines the role of industry bodies and policies. |
Statute |