Results
| Title | Citation | Alternate Citation | Summary | Type |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| IN - Animal Sacrifice - THE KERALA ANIMALS AND BIRDS SACRIFICES PROHIBITION ACT, 1968 | 20 of 1968 | This law, specific to the state of Kerala, prohibits the sacrifice of animals and birds within the precincts of temples. No persons may officiate at, perform, or participate in an animal sacrifice - it is a criminal offence. | Statute | |
| Non-US Topical Introductions | Policy | |||
| Canada - Ontario - Dog Owners' Liability Act | R.S.O. 1990, c. D.16, s. 1 - 20(4) | This Ontario, Canada set of laws comprises the Dog Owners' Liability Act. The main thrust of the law is to establish that an owner is liable for damages if his or her dog bites or attacks another person or domestic animal. Proceedings may be commenced in the Ontario Court of Justice against an owner of a dog if it is alleged that the dog attacked or bitten another person or domestic animal, or if the dog has behaved in a manner that poses a menace to the safety of persons or domestic animals. A court may then order the destruction of the dog, or measures for more effective control of the dog (leash restraint, muzzling, etc.). The Act also bans the owning, breeding, importing, or transferring of pit bull dogs in Ontario, save for dogs grandfathered in before the Act took effect in 2005 (then the dog is a "restricted pit bull" subject to further laws). | Statute | |
| Moden v. U.S. Fish and Wildlife | 2008 WL 4763025 (D.Or.) |
Plaintiffs filed claim against the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (“FWS”) alleging arbitrary and capricious agency action under the Administrative Procedure Act (“APA”) and failure to perform a nondiscretionary act under the Endangered Species Act (“ESA”). The United States District Court, D. Oregon, granted Defendants’ motion to dismiss and denied Plaintiffs’ request for leave to amend, and Plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment, finding that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction over Plaintiffs’ APA and ESA claims, and that it remains without jurisdiction to mandate action by the agency if rulemaking has not been initiated by the FWS at its discretion, regardless of whether a determination resulting from a five year review suggests a listing status should be changed or should remain the same. |
Case | |
| Fuller v. Vines | 36 F3d 65 (9th Cir. 1994) |
Motion for leave to amend § 1983 civil rights complaint to add claims that police officer violated Fourth Amendment by shooting pet dog and by pointing gun at one plaintiff was denied and the United States District Court for the Northern District of California entered summary judgment in favor of police officers and city. Plaintiffs appealed. The Court of Appeals held that: (1) killing of pet dog stated Fourth Amendment violation, but (2) no seizure of plaintiff occurred when police pointed gun. |
Case | |
| OH - Initiatives - Issue 1 Prohibition of the hunting of mourning doves | Issue 1, 1998 (failed) | This state issue, rejected by voters in 1998, would have amended Section 1531.02 of the Ohio Revised Code to prohibit the hunting or taking of mourning doves in Ohio. The proposed law specifically would have amended Section 1531.02 of the Ohio Revised Code by adding the words "NO PERSON SHALL HUNT OR TAKE A MOURNING DOVE." The measure failed with only 40.5% voting for the proposition. | Statute | |
| First Time User Tutorial |
Welcome to the Animal Legal & Historical Center!Wondering where to go first?Try the front page |
Basic page | ||
| Australia Animal Protection Law Journal | This page lists the volumes of the Australian Animal Protection Law Journal. Volume 1 (2008) through Volume 9 (2013) are available at the top of page as pdf downloads. Below this list of pdf links is a list of the table of contents for each volume of the journal. The table of contents contains the names of the articles, authors, and page numbers for each journal. More information about the journal is available at the Australian Animal Protection Law Journal website at http://animalprotectionlawjournal.com/. | Policy | ||
| State v. Ancona | 991 A.2d 663 (Conn.App.,2010) | 120 Conn.App. 324 (Conn.App.,2010), 2010 WL 1190539 |
Defendant Michael Ancona appealed his conviction of permitting a dog to roam at large in violation of General Statutes § 22-364(a). The defendant claims that (1) the court improperly held him responsible as a keeper of a dog when the owner was present and known to the authorities, and (2) the state adduced insufficient evidence to sustain his conviction. The plain language of the statute § 22-364(a) states that an “owner or keeper” is prohibited from allowing a dog to roam on a public highway. Either the owner or keeper or both can be held liable for a violation of the statute. The court also found sufficient evidence that defendant was the keeper of the pit bull: the dog stayed at his house, he initially responded to the incident and tried to pull the dog away, and defendant yelled at the Officer Rogers that she was not to take "his dog." |
Case |
| Baker v. SeaWorld Entertainment, Inc. | Slip Copy, 2019 WL 6118448 (S.D. Cal. Nov. 18, 2019) | Plaintiffs brought a securities fraud class action against the collective Defendants, including Seaworld Entertainment, Inc. This action involved statements and omissions made by the Defendants following a 2013 documentary titled Blackfish. The issues centered on the attendance impact that the documentary had on Seaworld. Company-wide attendance declined in 2013 and 2014, however, several officials of the Company made statements that there was no attendance impact resulting from the documentary. Both Plaintiffs and Defendants moved to exclude the testimony of several experts. The Court ultimately affirmed its tentative rulings, denied Defendant’s motion to exclude the testimony of two of Plaintiff’s experts, granted Defendant’s motion to exclude the testimony of Dr. James Gibson, granted in part and denied in part Plaintiff’s motion to exclude the testimony of Dr. Craig Lewis, granted Plaintiff’s motion to exclude the testimony of Dr. Randolph Bucklin, and denied Defendant’s motion for summary judgment. | Case |