Results
Displaying 5921 - 5930 of 6638
| Title | Citation | Alternate Citation | Summary | Type |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Beyond Humanity: New Frontiers in Animal Law | (2019) 5(1) CJCCL |
ForewordHonourable Senator Murray Sinclair, Senate of Canada i ArticlesBeastly DeadVaughan Black 1 |
Article | |
| Revista Brasileira de Direito Animal Volume 14 |
SUMÁRIOEDITORIALHeron José de Santana Gordilho………………………………………………. |
Policy | ||
| AZ - Horse slaughter - Article 4. Horsemeat. | A.R.S. § 3-2121 - 2132 | AZ ST § 3-2121 - 2132 | This Arizona article deals with horsemeat. A license shall be obtained from the division before slaughtering a horse for human consumption. There shall be an antemortem and a postmortem inspection of each horse slaughtered. All horsemeat food products shall be conspicuously branded, marked, tagged or labeled, horsemeat or horsemeat product. It is unlawful to offer horsemeat for sale for human consumption unless there is prominently displayed in conjunction therewith a sign bearing the words, in letters not less than eight inches in height and three inches in width, horsemeat for human consumption. | Statute |
| New Hampshire Revised Statutes 1843: Offences Against Chastity, Decency and Morality | N.H. Rev. Stat. ch. 219 § 12 (1843) | Section 12 of Chapter 219 from New Hampshire Revised Statutes of 1843 covers cruelty to animals. Specifically, the statutes states what qualifies as cruelty to animals and the punishment for it. | Statute | |
| United States v. March | 2004 WL 2283777 (9th Cir. Idaho) |
Defendant violated the Lacey Act by presenting false information to gain a hunting permit. He was convicted in United States District Court for the District of Idaho. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the District Court decision holding the District Court and Tribal Courts have concurrent jurisdiction over Indians for violations of the Lacey Act. |
Case | |
| Kasey v. Beshear | 626 S.W.3d 204 (Ky. Ct. App. 2021) | 2021 WL 1324395 (Ky. Ct. App. Apr. 9, 2021) | Appellants, Teresa's Legacy Continues, Inc., a non-profit organization of concerned citizens and taxpayers in Kentucky sued the Governor and Commissioner of Agriculture alleging failure to monitor or enforce compliance with animal shelter statutes (KRS3 Chapter 258, Animal Control and Protection). The appellants contend that in 120 of Kentucky's counties, only 12% are in compliance with the statutes and over 50% are in violation of at least three statutes. In lieu of filing an answer, the appellants filed a motion to dismiss based largely on appellants' lack of standing. In response, the appellants claimed standing based on actual damage and argued that they have "a real and substantial interest in the outcome" because post-tax funds that are supposed to be for shelters will "unjustly enrich[]" the Commonwealth. The circuit court dismissed the complaint for lack of standing in 2018 and this appeal followed. On appeal, this court held that the failure to enforce Kentucky laws is not the particularized injury contemplated under the Lujan test. In fact, the court declined to expand the doctrine of standing to include an injury based on the appellants voluntary expenditure of personal time and resources to care for abandoned animals when they were under no legal obligation to do so. As to the asserted taxpayer standing, the court found that appellants failed to allege in circuit court that funds were being illegally expended and thus, could not consider this argument for the first time on appeal. Further, the animal shelter statutes at issue require only that the Governor and Commission of Agriculture disburse the funds and had no control over the oversight of funding (that goes to the governing board of each county). Thus, the cause of appellants' injuries could not be traced to the appellees. Lastly, the court acknowledged that while appellants have attempted to show standing via citizen and taxpayer status, Kentucky law has not previously considered that avenue. Said the court, "[p]erhaps, given the right facts and circumstances, one could obtain such standing. However, for the reasons set forth above, we cannot say the Appellants have properly pled it here." Affirmed. | Case |
| AK - Initiatives - 05HUNT (shooting bears and wolves from aircraft) | 05-HUNT (2008) | This 2008 measure was an initiated state statute presented to voters in August of 2008. The measure would have prohibited shooting of a free-ranging wolf, wolverine, or grizzly bear the same day that the person has been airborne. It was defeated by a margin of 44.4% for the measure and 55.6% against on August 26th. | Statute | |
| WI - Hunting - 29.083. Interference with hunting, fishing or trapping | W. S. A. 29.083 | WI ST 29.083 | This law reflects Wisconsin's hunter harassment provision. Under the law, no person may interfere or attempt to interfere with lawful hunting, fishing or trapping with the intent to prevent the taking of a wild animal. It is an affirmative defense to the prosecution for violation of this section if the defendant's conduct is protected by his or her right to freedom of speech under the constitution of this state or of the United States. A court may enjoin action prohibited under this statute and may award damages, including punitive and special damages, to a person adversely affected. | Statute |
| UK - Riding - Riding Establishments Act 1964 | Riding Establishments Act 1964 |
An Act to regulate the keeping of riding establishments; and for purposes connected therewith. |
Statute | |
| Animal Legal Defense Fund; Animal Welfare Institute; Valerie Buchanan; Jane Garrison; Nancy Megna, plaintiffs-appellants v. Ann | In this federal action, plaintiffs (ALDF, the AWI, and three individuals) challenged the USDA's decision not to adopt a Draft Policy that would have provided guidance to zoos, research facilities, and other regulated entities in how to ensure the psychological well-being of on-human primates in order to comply with the Animal Welfare Act. While the district court found that the USDA's decision did not constitute a reviewable final agency decision, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals found that the lower court did indeed have authority under the Administrative Procedures Act to review the agency's decision not to create a policy. On June 4, 2007, the Court vacated the previous opinion and dismissed the appeal with prejudice. Two judges wrote separate opinions, concurring and dissenting in part. | Pleading |