Results
| Title | Citation | Alternate Citation | Agency Citation | Summary | Type |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| UT - South Jordan - Breed - Pit Bull Ordinance | JORDAN, UT., MUNICIPAL CODE § 6.12.100 (1997) |
In South Jordan, Utah, it is unlawful to own, possess, keep, exercise control over, maintain, harbor, transport or sell any "pit bull terrier." There is an exception for dogs licensed prior to the effective date of the ordinance, but such dogs are subject to certain requirements, such as the maintenance of $50,000 insurance for bodily injury or death. Such dogs must be properly confined or securely leashed and muzzled, and be implanted with an identification microchip. Any violation of this section is a class C misdemeanor.
|
Local Ordinance | ||
| Progressive Animal Welfare Society v. Department of Navy | 725 F. Supp. 475 (1989) |
The Progressive Animal Welfare Shelter ("PAWS") and fourteen other environmental and animal rights groups brought this action for a preliminary injunction against the Navy's plan to "deploy" Atlantic bottlenose dolphins at the Bangor submarine base. |
Case | ||
| US - AWA - Subpart D. Specifications/Standards for Nonhuman Primates | 9 C.F.R. § 3.75 to .92 | This portion of the AWA regulations contains the humane care provisions for non-human primates. Included are requirements for housing facilities, primary enclosures, provisions for psychological well-being, feeding, watering, sanitization, employee requirements, and transportation standards. | Administrative | ||
| TX - Hunting - Subchapter F. Unlawful Controlled Killing of or Attempting to Injure Dangerous Wild Animals. | V. T. C. A., Parks & Wildlife Code § 62.101 - 107 | TX PARKS & WILD §§ 62.101 - 107 | This Texas statute provides that no person may kill or attempt to injure a dangerous wild animal that is in captivity in this state or released from captivity in this state for the purpose of being killed. | Statute | |
| Rhoades v. City of Battle Ground | 2002 WL 31789336 (Wash.App. Div. 2) | 114 Wash.App. 1062 (2002) (Not Reported in P.2d) |
In this case, exotic animal owners appeal a summary judgment order dismissing their various constitutional challenges to a City of Battle Ground ordinance that prohibits ownership of such animals within city limits. Specifically, the owners contended that the ordinance violated their right to equal protection under the constitution because it treats those who keep exotic pets within the City differently from those who keep dangerous dogs. The court held that it was within the city's police power authority to enact these laws if they were supported by a rational relationship. In fact, the court found that the local legislative body may draw a different conclusion from the Washington Supreme Court in areas of public safety and the exercise of the local government's police powers provided it does not conflict with the general laws of the state. ( Note : publication of case ordered Feb. 7, 2003 in 115 Wash.App. 752, 63 P.3d 142 ). |
Case | |
| US - Eagle - Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Reopening of Comment Period | 1995 WL 121178 (F.R.) |
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) is reopening the comment period on the bald eagle reclassification proposal for thirty days. On July 12, 1994, the Service proposed reclassifying the bald eagles of the lower 48 States as threatened, except those already listed as threatened and those of the Southwestern Recovery Region and Mexico. The bald eagles of the Southwestern Recovery Region were proposed to remain listed as endangered. The Service also proposed classifying bald eagles in Mexico as endangered; they are not currently listed as endangered or threatened. Specific public comment was solicited on the status of bald eagles in the Southwest and Mexico and the distinctness of those eagles as a separate population. New information indicates that the Southwestern and Mexican bald eagles may not warrant a classification as endangered. The Service is making available for public review and comment information recently received about bald eagles of the Southwestern Recovery Region. |
Administrative | ||
| NY - Education - § 809. Instruction in the humane treatment of animals | McKinney's Education Law § 809 | NY EDUC § 809 | This New York law requires those officers, boards or commissions authorized or required to prescribe courses of instruction that receive public funding to establish a humane education curriculum as described. Additionally, the law states that any school that uses animal for study must provide: (1) appropriate quarters; (2) sufficient space for the normal behavior and postural requirements of the species; (3) proper ventilation, lighting, and temperature control; (4) adequate food and clean drinking water; and (5) quarters which shall be cleaned on a regular basis and located in an area where undue stress and disturbance are minimized. With regard to dissection, the law allows any student who expresses a moral or religious objection to performing or witnessing the dissection of an animal to be provided the opportunity to undertake an alternative project. This request by the student must be substantiated in writing by the student's parent or legal guardian. Students who decline dissection are not to be penalized under the law and parents and students must be notified about their rights under this law. Finally, the law prohibits certain experimentation on live vertebrate animals. | Statute | |
| WI - Assistance Animals - Assistance Animal/Guide Dog Laws | W. S. A. 106.50; 106.52; 346.26; 440.45; 951.01, 951.097, 951.18 | WI ST 106.50; 106.52; 346.26; 440.45; 951.01, 951.097, 951.18 | The following statutes comprise the state's relevant assistance animal and service animal laws. | Statute | |
| PA - Trust - § 7738. Trust for care of animal - UTC 408 | 20 Pa.C.S.A. § 7738 | PS ST 20 Pa.C.S.A. § 7738 | In 2006, Pennsylvania became the 32nd state to adopt a pet trust law. The law provides that a trust may be created to provide for the care of an animal alive during the settlor's lifetime. The trust terminates upon the death of the animal or, if the trust was created to provide for the care of more than one animal alive during the settlor's lifetime, upon the death of the last surviving animal. | Statute | |
| Humane Society International Inc v Kyodo Senpaku Kaisha Ltd | (2008) 244 ALR 161 | (2008) 165 FCR 510; (2008) 99 ALD 534; [2008] FCA 3 |
The applicant, an incorporated public interest organisation, sought an injunction to restrain the respondent Japanese company which owned several ocean vessels engaged in, and likely to further engage in, whaling activities in waters claimed by Australia. It was found that the applicant had standing to bring the injunction and the respondent engaged in activities prohibited by the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (Cth). Orders were entered against against the respondent even though it had no assets in Australia and the likelihood of being able to enforce judgment was very low. |
Case |