Results
Displaying 1 - 10 of 6638
| Title | Citation | Alternate Citation | Agency Citation | Summary | Type |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| NV - Eggs - Chapter 583. Eggs. Cage-Free Eggs | N.R.S. 583.211 - 251 | Nev. Rev. Stat. Ann. §§ 583.211 - 251 (West) | This collection of laws are Nevada's cage-free egg provisions. Under these laws, Nevada egg producers must adopt cage-free housing systems for egg-laying hens. These housing systems must allow the hens a certain amount of usable space and the ability to do certain natural behaviors. Producers that do not comply with these provisions are subject to a civil penalty. | Statute | |
| Town of Bethlehem v. Acker | 102 A.3d 107 (Conn. App. 2014) | 153 Conn.App. 449 (2014) | Plaintiffs seized approximately 65 dogs from the Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals of Connecticut pursuant to a search and seizure warrant that had been issued on facts showing that the dogs, which were being kept in an uninsulated barn with an average temperature of 30 degrees Fahrenheit, were neglected, in violation of General Statutes § 22–329a. The trial court found that the smaller breed dogs were neglected, but found that larger breed dogs were not. On an appeal by plaintiffs and a cross appeal by defendants, the appeals court found: (1) the trial court applied the correct legal standards and properly determined that the smaller breed dogs were neglected and that the larger breed dogs were not neglected, even though all dogs were kept in a barn with an average temperature of 30 degrees Fahrenheit; (2) § 22–329a was not unconstitutionally vague because a person of ordinary intelligence would know that keeping smaller breed dogs in an uninsulated space with an interior temperature of approximately 30 degrees Fahrenheit would constitute neglect; (3) the trial court did not err in declining to admit the rebuttal testimony offered by the defendants; and (4) the trial court did not err in granting the plaintiffs' request for injunctive relief and properly transferred ownership of the smaller breed dogs to the town. The appellate court, however, reversed the judgment of the trial court only with respect to its dispositional order, which directed the parties to determine among themselves which dogs were smaller breed dogs and which dogs were larger breed dogs, and remanded the case for further proceedings, consistent with this opinion. | Case | |
| CA - Mammals - § 4700. Taking or possession prohibited; scientific research; legal imports; | West's Ann. Cal. Fish & G. Code § 4700 | CA FISH & G § 4700 | This statute enumerates the fully protected mammals in the state of California. These animals may not be taken or possessed at any time. The statute also specifically states that permits or licenses to take these animals will not be issued, with a possible exception in the case of necessary scientific research. | Statute | |
| Humane Soc'y of the United States v. Nat'l Institutes of Health | Slip Copy, No. 21-CV-00121-LKG, 2022 WL 17619232 (D. Md. Dec. 13, 2022) | Plaintiff animal welfare advocates sued the National Institute of Health (NIH) for failing to transfer all chimpanzees housed at the Alamogordo Primate Facility to a retirement sanctuary known as “Chimp Haven." According to plaintiffs, transfer is required under the federal Chimpanzee Health Improvement, Maintenance and Protection Act (“CHIMP Act”), 42 U.S.C. § 283m, as well as the Administrative Procedure Act (APA). In 2015, NIH officially announced that it would cease biomedical research on chimpanzees and establish a working group to transfer all 288 surplus chimpanzees owned by NIH to Chimp Haven. In 2019, the NIH announced that not all chimpanzees would be transferred to Chimp Haven because 44 of those individuals were too frail for transfer due to medical conditions. After cross-motions for summary judgment, this court considers whether transfer is legally required. On appeal, Plaintiffs contend that the plain language of the CHIMP Act requires the transfer of all chimps and the court owes no deference to agency interpretation. In contrast, the Government argues that the decision is consistent with the CHIMP Act because the plain language of the act only requires that surplus chimpanzees offered by NIH be "accepted" into CHIMP Haven. The court found that the plain and unambiguous language, and use of the word "shall," in the CHIMP Act requires the NIH to transfer ALL chimpanzees to the federal sanctuary system. In addition, the legislative history of the CHIMP Act reinforces that reading of the statute. While the court recognized NIH's concern toward the frailest chimpanzees, the proper avenue is within the legislative branch. Notably, the court was unsure as to the proper remedy in this particular matter (e.g., whether a remand or vacatur is more appropriate). As a result, Plaintiffs' motion for partial summary judgment was granted and the Government's cross motion was denied as was the motion to dismiss. The court directed the parties to file a joint status report report with views on the relief Plaintiff seeks and how the matter should proceed in light of the instant opinion. | Case | ||
| South Africa - Biodiversity - National Environmental Management | No. 10 of 2004: National Environmental Management: Biodiversity Act, 2004. | The objectives of this Act are, within the framework of the National Environmental Management Act, to provide for the management and conservation of biological diversity within the Republic and of the components of such biological diversity; to provide for the use of indigenous biological resources in a sustainable manner; and to provide for the fair and equitable sharing among stakeholders of benefits arising from bioprosgecting involving indigenous biological resources. Other objecitves of this Act are to give effect to ratified international agreements relating to biodiversity which are binding on the Republic; to provide for co-operative governance in biodiversity management and conservation; and to provide for a South African National Biodiversity Institute to assist in achieving the objectives of this Act. | Statute | ||
| AK - Trusts - § 13.12.907. Honorary trusts; trusts for pets | AS § 13.12.907 | AK ST § 13.12.907 | This Alaska statute provides that trusts for the continuing care of designated domestic animals are valid, provided they are a duration of 21 years or less. The trust terminates when a living animal is no longer covered by the trust. Any remaining trust funds do not go to the trustee, but rather transfer by the order stipulated in the statute. | Statute | |
| CT- Pet Shops - Sec. 22-344-21a. Prohibited sales | CT ADC § 22-344-32 - 94 | Regs. Conn. State Agencies § 22-344-32 - § 22-344-94 | This Connecticut regulation lists the animals of which the exhibition, sale or offer for sale by a pet shop is prohibited. The condition in which commercial kennel facilities, pet shops, grooming facilities, training facilities, and animal shelters must be kept are described including sanitation, health requirements, ventilation, and other structural requirements. | Administrative | |
| IN - Animal Sacrifice - THE KARNATAKA PREVENTION OF ANIMAL SACRIFICES ACT, 1959 | 3 of 1960 | The law, specific to the southern state of Karnataka, prohibits animal and bird sacrifices in places of public religious worship. Persons are prohibited from performing, organizing, or participating in animal sacrifices—they are criminal offences carrying a fine or imprisonment. Police officers not below the rank of a sub-inspector may arrest persons committing an offence under this Act without a warrant. | Statute | ||
| Topical Introductions | Topical introductions contain a collection of legal materials (cases, laws, and articles) for a specific topic with a short summary and detailed legal analysis. Topics range from dog issues (like dog bite laws, lost dogs, custody issues involving pets in divorce) to complex federal laws such as the U.S. Endangered Species Act or the Animal Welfare Act. | Basic page | |||
| Canada - Northwest Territories Statutes/Nunavut - Dog Act | R.S.N.W.T. 1988, c. D-7, s. 1 | This set of laws comprises the Northwest Territories Dog Act. Under the Act, owners may not allow their dogs to run loose and must provide them with sufficient food and water. Further, the law provides that no person shall punish or abuse a dog in a manner or to an extent that is cruel or unnecessary or drive a dog or dog team on a sidewalk situated on the street or road of a settlement. The law also sets forth the procedure for the impoundment and release of dogs. For the latest version of this Act, see the pdf. | Statute |