Results
| Title | Citation | Alternate Citation | Agency Citation | Summary | Type |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| CA - Cruelty - Part 9. Societies for Prevention of Cruelty to Children and Animals. | West's Ann. Cal. Corp. Code § 10400 - 10406 | CA CORP § 10400 - 10406 | This set of statutes outlines the rights and responsibilities of corporations that are formed for the prevention of cruelty to animals. | Statute | |
| SC - Initiative - Amendment 1, Right to Hunt and Fish | Amendment 1, Right to Hunt and Fish (2010) (passed) |
The legislature summary for the proposed amendment states: "[a] joint resolution to propose an amendment to Article I of the Constitution of South Carolina, 1895, relating to the declaration of rights under the state's constitution, by adding Section 25 so as to provide that hunting and fishing are valuable parts of the state's heritage, important for conservation, and a protected means of managing nonthreatened wildlife; to provide that the citizens of South Carolina shall have the right to hunt, fish, and harvest wildlife traditionally pursued, subject to laws and regulations promoting sound wildlife conservation and management as prescribed by the General Assembly; and to specify that this section must not be construed to abrogate any private property rights, existing state laws or regulations, or the state's sovereignty over its natural resources." It passed with 89% voting "yes." |
Statute | ||
| Dias v. City and County of Denver | 567 F.3d 1169 (C.A.10 (Colo.),2009) | 2009 WL 1490359 (C.A.10 (Colo.)) |
The Tenth Circuit took up a challenge to Denver's breed-specific ban against pitbull dogs. The plaintiffs, former residents of Denver, contended the ban is unconstitutionally vague on its face and deprives them of substantive due process. The district court dismissed both claims under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) before plaintiffs presented evidence to support their claims. On appeal, the plaintiffs argue that the district court erred by prematurely dismissing the case at the 12(b)(6) stage. The Tenth Circuit agreed in part, finding that while the plaintiffs lack standing to seek prospective relief for either claim because they have not shown a credible threat of future prosecution, taking the factual allegations in the complaint as true the plaintiffs have plausibly alleged that the pit bull ban is not rationally related to a legitimate government interest. |
Case | |
| IN RE: ROSIA LEE ENNES | 45 Agric. Dec. 540 (1986) | 1986 WL 74679 (U.S.D.A.) | Civil penalty of $1,000 against unlicensed dealer was appropriate under 7 USCS § 2149(b), and greater penalty could have been requested where although moderate size of kennel suggested modest penalty, selling hundreds of dogs without license over 40-month period was grave violation of Animal Welfare Act, violations were not committed in good faith since dogs were knowingly and intentionally sold without license after receiving 4 warnings, and even though dealer thought mistakenly that Department would not prosecute her for such violations and there was no history of previous violations, the hundreds of violations proven were sufficient to warrant severe sanction. | Case | |
| US - AWA - Subpart C. Specifications for the Humane Handling, Care, Treatment and Transportation of Rabbits. | 9 C.F.R. § 3.50 to 3.66 | These regulations contain the humane care provisions for rabbits. | Administrative | ||
| AK - Rabies - 7 AAC 27.022. Rabies vaccination and quarantine. | Alaska Admin. Code tit. 7, § 27.022 | 7 AAC 27.022 | This Alaska regulation provides that a dog, cat, or ferret is required to be vaccinated for rabies in accordance with schedules in the Compendium of Animal Rabies Prevention and Control, 2011. | Administrative | |
| Am. Anti-Vivisection Soc'y v. United States Dept. of Agric. | --- F.Supp.3d ----, 2018 WL 6448635 (D.D.C. Dec. 10, 2018). | 2018 WL 6448635 | The American Anti-Vivisection Society and the Avian Welfare Coalition sued the Department of Agriculture and its Secretary alleging that the Department's failure to promulgate bird-specific regulations is unreasonable, unlawful, and arbitrary and capricious in violation of the APA. The Plaintiffs sought court-ordered deadlines by which the Department must propose such rules. The Department moved to dismiss the Plaintiff's claims arguing that the Plaintiffs lack standing to sue, that it is not required by law to promulgate regulations for birds, and that it has not taken a final action reviewable by the court. The District Court ultimately held that, although the Plaintiffs have standing to sue, both of their claims fail. The Department is not required by the Animal Welfare Act to issue avian-specific standards; rather, it must to issue welfare standards that are generally applicable to animals. Secondly, although the Department has not taken any action to develop avian-specific standards, that does not mean that will not do so in the future. The District Court granted the department's motion to dismiss. | Case | |
| Whittier Terrace Associates v. Hampshire | 532 N.E.2d 712 (Mass. 1989) |
Defendant was a person with a psychiatric disability and living in public housing. Defendant claimed to have an emotional and psychological dependence on her cat. The court held that the housing authority discriminated against defendant under Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act for failure to waive the no pets policy as a reasonable accommodation for the mental disability. The court noted that there must be a narrow exception "to the rigid application of a no-pet rule, involving no untoward collateral consequences," because the handicapped person could fully receive the benefits of the program if provided the accommodation. |
Case | ||
| CT - Pet Trust - Chapter 802C. Trusts | C. G. S. A. § 45a-489a | CT ST § 45a-489a | Connecticut enacted its "pet trust" law in 2009. Under the law, a testamentary or inter vivos trust may be created to provide for the care of an animal or animals alive during the settlor's or testator's lifetime. The trust terminates when the last surviving animal named in the trust dies. The trust must designate a "trust protector" who acts on behalf of the animals named in the trust. | Statute | |
| UK - Dog - Breeding of Dogs Act 1991 | 1991 c. 64 |
This Act extends the powers of inspection for the purposes of the Breeding of Dogs Act 1973 to premises not covered by a licence under that Act, thereby enabling local authorities to investigate suspicions that a dog breeding establishment is operating without the necessary license |
Statute |