Results
| Title | Citation | Alternate Citation | Summary | Type | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| US - Trade - Tariff Act of 1930 | 19 USCA § 1481 | This federal law outlines the requirements for importation invoices. | Statute | |||||||
| AR - Ordinances - § 14-54-1102. Dogs running astray. | A.C.A. § 14-54-1102 | AR ST § 14-54-1102 | This Arkansas statute provides that municipal corporations have the power to prevent the running at large of dogs and the injuries and annoyances associated with them. Further, this statute allows municipalities to authorize the destruction or impoundment of dogs if found in violation of ordinance. However, prior to destroying the dog, the municipality shall give the dog's owner at least five (5) days' notice of the date of the proposed destruction of the dog by certified mail if the dog carries the owner's address. | Statute | ||||||
| Vickers v. Egbert | 359 F. Supp. 2d 1358 (Fla. 2005) |
A commercial fisherman brought a claim against the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission alleging substantive due process violations. The Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission instituted licensing requirements and restrictions on lobster trapping certificates in order to alleviate an overpopulation of lobster traps. The court held in favor of the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission, reasoning fishing was not a fundamental right. |
Case | |||||||
| Tlaxcala |
This southwestern state is the smallest of the Mexican states. In 2022, Tlaxcala joined the vast list of states in Mexico that punish animal cruelty as a criminal offense. Before that, this state only had an animal protection law that was enacted in 2019. |
Policy | ||||||||
| CA - Dog, dangerous - § 31625. Seizure and impoundment pending hearing | West's Ann.Cal.Food & Agric.Code § 31625 | CA FOOD & AG § 31625 | This California statute allows an animal control officer or law enforcement officer to seize and impound the dog pending hearing if there is probable cause to believe the dog poses an immediate threat to public safety. The owner or keeper of the dog shall be liable to the city or county where the dog is impounded for the costs and expenses of keeping the dog, if the dog is later adjudicated potentially dangerous or vicious. | Statute | ||||||
| EU - Fur - Regulation (EC) No 1523/2007 (dog and cat fur ban) | Regulation (EC) No 1523/2007 | Statute | ||||||||
| U.S. v. Apollo Energies, Inc. | 611 F.3d 679 (C.A.10 (Kan.), 2010) | 2010 WL 2600502 (C.A.10 (Kan.)) |
Appellants, Apollo Energies, Inc. and Dale Walker, were charged with violating the Migratory Bird Treaty Act after an agent with the USFWS discovered dead migratory birds lodged in each appellant's "heater-treater," a piece of equipment used in the course of appellants' Kansas oil drilling businesses, on several occasions. At trial, both Apollo and Walker were convicted of misdemeanor violations for "taking" or "possessing" migratory birds. On appeal, Apollo and Walker contested that (1) the MBTA is not a strict liability crime or, (2) if it is a strict liability crime, the MBTA is unconstitutional as applied to their conduct. Bound by a previous holding that found misdemeanor violations of the MBTA are strict liability crimes, the court concluded that the MBTA includes no mens rea requirement. As to Appellants' second contention challenging the constitutionality of the Act, the court concluded that while the Act is not unconstitutionally vague, "the MBTA requires a defendant to proximately cause the statute's violation for the statute to pass constitutional muster. |
Case | ||||||
| Constitutional Law of Human Rights and its Guarantees of Mexico City | Ley Constitucional de Derechos Humanos y sus Garantías de la Ciudad de México | This 2019 law is a secondary law that regulates the application of the constitutional mandate that the Mexico City government guarantees the fulfillment of the more than fifty fundamental rights established in the Constitution. This law addresses the issue of animal protection, specifically in Article 95. Article 95 states that animal protection shall be guaranteed in the broadest way to provide a livable city and seek people's fulfillment of the right to a healthy environment. | Statute | |||||||
| Derecho Animal Volume 7 Núm 2 |
|
Policy | ||||||||
| Animal Legal Defense Fund v. Herbert | This complaint launches the first legal challenge to any ag-gag law in the United States. In it, the Animal Legal Defense Fund, People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, Amy Meyer, and others argue that Utah Code Ann. § 76-6-112 is unconstitutionally overbroad, constitutes content-based discrimination in violation of the First Amendment, is preempted by the federal False Claims Act, and violates animal protection groups’ equal protection and due process. | Pleading |