Results
Displaying 6031 - 6040 of 6639
| Title | Citation | Alternate Citation | Agency Citation | Summary | Type | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| US - Smuggling - § 545. Smuggling goods into the United States | 18 USCA § 545 | This federal law provides punishment for smuggling merchandise (including animals) into the United States. | Statute | ||||||||
| AR - Endangered Species - Endangered, Threatened, and Nongame Species Preservation | A.C.A. § 15-45-301 to 306 | AR ST § 15-45-301 to 306 | Arkansas law provides that it is the intent of the State to protect rare, threatened, and endangered species. This policy also provides for the protection of critical habitat for these species. | Statute | |||||||
| CA - Humane Slaughter - Chapter 6. Slaughter | West's Ann. Cal. Food & Agric. Code § 19501 - 19503 | CA FOOD & AG § 19501 - 19503 | This California section constitutes the humane slaughter provisions for cattle, calves, horses, mules, sheep, swine, goats, fallow deer, and poultry. The law provides that the animal shall be rendered insensible to pain by a captive bolt, gunshot, electrical or chemical means, or any other means that is rapid and effective before being cut, shackled, hoisted, thrown, or cast, with the exception of poultry which may be shackled. Note that despite the section covering poultry, it does not apply to the slaughter of spent hens and small game birds, as defined by the department by regulation. | Statute | |||||||
| EU - Egg Labeling - Egg Labeling Directive Number 1028 - Council Regulation (EC) No 1028/2006 | (EC) No 1028/2006 |
In June of 2006, the Commission passed a broad regulation on egg labeling—Number 1028—that served mainly to set out labeling requirements distinguishing between Class A eggs (eggs for direct human consumption) and Class B eggs (other eggs). It paved the way for more detailed egg labeling legislation, such as Regulation 557 of 2007, that had a more direct impact on hen welfare. |
Statute | ||||||||
| Humane Society of United States v. State Board of Equalization | 61 Cal.Rptr.3d 277 (Cal. App. 1 Dist., 2007) | 2007 WL 1775772 (Cal. App. 1 Dist.), 152 Cal.App.4th 349 (2007) |
Humane society and four state taxpayers brought action attacking government waste, requesting injunctive and declaratory relief that would bar implementation of tax exemptions for farm equipment and machinery as they applied to “battery cage” chicken coops that allegedly violated animal cruelty laws. State Board of Equalization demurred. Superior Court sustained without leave to amend the complaint and dismissed the case, which the Court of Appeal affirmed, stating that the plaintiffs did not allege a valid cause of action attacking government waste. |
Case | |||||||
| People v. Minutolo | 215 A.D.3d 1260, 188 N.Y.S.3d 297 (2023) | No. 21-01424, 278, 188 N.Y.S.3d 297, 2023 N.Y. Slip Op. 02220, 2023 WL 3161037 (N.Y.A.D. 4 Dept., Apr. 28, 2023) | Defendant appealed from a judgment convicting him of animal cruelty in violation of New York Agriculture and Markets Law § 353. The conviction stemmed from defendant's action in repeatedly striking one of his dogs out of "frustration" after the dog failed to come when called. On appeal, defendant called into question the authentication of surveillance video from a nearby gas station showing him striking the dog. The Supreme Court, Appellate Division found the portion of surveillance video showing defendant repeatedly striking one of his dogs was sufficiently authenticated. Further, other evidence established that he "cruelly beat" the dog by punching the dog with a closed fist three to five times. Finally, defendant's challenge to the penalty imposed under Agriculture and Markets Law § 374 (8)(c) (the possession ban provision) that prohibits defendant from owning or otherwise having custody of any other animals for 10 years was rejected by the court. The judgment was unanimously affirmed. | Case | |||||||
| Derecho Animal Volume 8 Núm 1 |
|
Policy | |||||||||
| Price v. Brown, V.M.D. | 131 Montg. Co. L. R. 150 (1994) | Plaintiff's bull dog went to defendant veterinarian for surgery to correct a prolapsed urethra. The dog died a few days later. The plaintiff then sought to recover the value of the dog on a strict theory of bailment. Defendant filed a preliminary objection asserting that this doctrine was inapplicable and could not afford relief. The court held that the plaintiff had failed to state a claim from which relief could be sought and dismissed the complaint. The court, however, allowed the plaintiff to amend the compliant.In holding to sustain the defendant's preliminary objection, the court reasoned that since veterinarians are part of a professional discipline, in order to recover damages for the injury or the death to an animal entrusted to a veterinarian's care, a plaintiff must prove professional negligence instead of a bailiff arrangement. | Case | ||||||||
| NY - Horse Racing - Section 4117.1. Drive to finish | 9 NY ADC 4117.1 | 9 NYCRR 4117.1 | Every race must be contested by every horse in the race and every horse must be driven to the finish. | Administrative | |||||||
| AZ - Equine Activity Liability Statute | A. R. S. § 12-553 | AZ ST § 12-553 | This Arizona statute provides that an equine agent or owner is not liable for injury if the participant took control of the equine prior to injury, if a parent or guardian signed a release on behalf of a minor, if the owner or agent has properly installed suitable tack or the participant has personally tacked the equine, or the owner or agent assigns a suitable equine based on a reasonable interpretation of the person's representation of his or her skills, health and experience with and knowledge of equines. Liability is not limited, however, when an equine owner or agent is grossly negligent or commits willful, wanton or intentional acts or omissions. | Statute |