Results
Title |
Author | Citation | Alternate Citation | Summary | Type |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Argentina - Environmental - Ley 25.335, 2000 | Ley 25.335 | This Ley approved the amendments to the Convention on Wetlands of International Importance especially the Waterbird Habitat, Ramsar 1971, adopted by the Extraordinary Conference of the Contracting Parties in the city of Regina, Canada. It also approved the ordered text of the Convention on Wetlands. | Statute | ||
| Argentina - Endangered species - Ley Nº 24.702, 1996 | Ley 24.702 | Ley Nº 24.702 establishes that various species of andean deer will be declared natural monuments. This species correspond to: Hippocamelus bisulcus (huemul, güemul or guamul (araucano); shoan, shoam or shonen (tehuelche), Andean deer, southern huemul, trula or trulá, Chilean huemul, hueque, deer (southern Patagonia) and Hippocamelus antisensis (tarusch, taruga, taruka or chacu (quichua), deer, northern or northern huemul, huemul, fallow deer, cerrero deer, huemul cordillerano, huemul peruano, peñera). Ley Nº 24.702, also instructs the National Park Administration and the Directorate of Wildlife and Flora of the Nation to work together on the management plan for the species in the areas of its jurisdiction, making sure it is in accordance to the national faunal policy. | Statute | ||
| Argentina - Endangered species - Ley 25.463, 2001 | Ley 25.463 | This law declared the Panthera onca, also known as yaguareté, Jaguar, overo tiger or painted onca, a natural monument. Ley 25.463/01 instructs the National Park Administration and the Directorate of Wildlife and Flora of the Nation to work together on the management plan for the species in the areas of its jurisdiction, making sure it is in accordance to the national faunal policy. The Enforcement Authority will guarantee the planning and execution of preventive measures in cases in which a specimen becomes circumstantially harmful to humans or their productive activities. | Statute | ||
| Argentina - Cruelty - Ley 2.786 | Ley 2.786 | Ley Sarmiento was the first law in South America enacted for the protection of animals. This criminal law prohibited animal cruelty at the national level and imposed on the police the duty to enforce laws protecting animals in cooperation with the Argentinian Society for the Protection of Animals. It imposed fines instead of prison time. The Sarmiento law paved the way for the Peron law (ley 14.346) that was enacted in 1954, which is valid to this day. | Statute | ||
| Argentina - Cruelty - Ley 14346, 1954 | LEY DJA: S-0410 | This law seeks to protect animals against mIstreatment and cruel acts. Mistreatment are cruel acts and considered criminal offenses, which can be punished from 15 days to 1 year in prison. Article 2 of this law establishes the acts considered mistreatment, which includes not feeding domestic and captive animals with food in enough quantity and quality. Also included are the acts of forcing animals to work excessive hours without providing adequate rest according to the weather and stimulating them with drugs without pursuing therapeutic purposes, among others. Article 3 defines acts that are considered cruel. These acts include practicing vivisection for purposes that are not scientifically demonstrable, or in places or by people who are not authorized to operate on animals without anesthesia and without the title of doctor or veterinarian, except in cases of emergency. In addition, cruelty includes: mutilating any part of the body of an animal unless the action has purposes of improvement; marking of the respective animal species unless performed for reasons of mercy; performing public or private acts of animal fights, bullfights and parodies where animals are killed, injured or harassed; and other listed acts. | Statute | ||
| Argentina - Companion animals - Decreto 1088/2011 | Decreto 1088/2011 | This law creates the "National Program for Responsible Ownership and Health of Dogs and Cats" in Argentina. | Statute | ||
| Argentina | Angie Vega |
Argentina |
Topical Introduction | ||
| ARFF, Inc. v. Siegel | 867 So.2d 451 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2004) | 29 Fla. L. Weekly D355 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2004) |
Resort developer and president of an animal performance company received an injunction against an animal rights group limiting their ability to both picket the resort and distribute pamphlets claiming that the big cats were abused. Appellate court reversed, finding that the picketing regulations burdened more speech than necessary and that the restriction on distributing pamphlets was a prior restraint not justified by a compelling state interest. |
Case | |
| Arellano v. Broward | 207 So. 3d 351 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2016) | 2016 WL 6992338 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. Nov. 30, 2016) |
Plaintiff Lisa Arellano suffered a dog bite and injury to her big toe after being attacked by a guard dog. The Defendant, Broward K–9/Miami K–9 Services, Inc. (“K–9”), owned two guard dogs. The guard dogs escaped K-9 after the business was burglarized, and the chain link fence was cut. The dogs entered Arellano’s neighborhood and she believed that the dogs belonged to one of her neighbors. Arellano fed and sheltered the dogs for about five days, and took steps to find the dogs' owner. However, Arellano also had pet dogs of her own. Eventually, one of the guard dogs attacked one of Arellano's dogs. When Arellano intervened in the attack between the two dogs, she was injured. Eventually, Animal Control determined that K–9 owned the guard dogs. Arellano then brought a statuory damages claim for strict liability against K-9 under Florida’s dog bite statute. The Circuit Court, Miami–Dade County, entered summary judgment in favor of K-9 and determined as a matter of law, that Arellano's actions constituted a superseding, intervening cause, thereby precluding her statutory dog bite claim against the Defendant, K-9. Plaintiff, Arellano appealed. The District Court of Appeals, held that triable issues of fact existed as to whether, and to what extent, K-9's liability under the statute should be reduced because of allegedly negligent actions by Arellano. The Court of Appeals reversed and remanded the circuit court decision and reasoned that Florida's dog bite statute imposes strict liability on dog owners, subject only to a plaintiff's comparative negligence, which in this case must be determined by the trier-of-fact. K-9's liability under the statute should only be reduced because of the allegedly negligent actions of Arellano. The court also reversed the resulting cost judgment in K–9's favor. The case was remanded to the trial court. |
Case | |
| ARE WOMEN PERSONS? | Drucilla Cornell | 3 Animal L. 7 (1997) | This article provides a brief look at "rights theory" regarding women in comparison to animals. | Article |