Results
| Title | Citation | Alternate Citation | Summary | Type | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| US - AWA - 1990 Public Law 101-624 | 1990 PL 101-624 | 104 Stat 3359 | Enacted November 28, 1990, this public law amends the Animal Welfare Act by establishing holding period for dogs and cats at shelters and other holding facilities before sale to dealers. It requires dealers to provide written certification regarding each animal's background to the recipient. Specific items included on the certificate are mechanisms of enforcement, injunctions, and penalties for violation. | Statute | ||||||
| US - MMPA - Legislative History of 1972 | U.S.C.C.A.N. 4144, 1971 WL 11285 (Leg.Hist.) |
This document contains most of the legislative history surrounding the 1972 adoption of the Marine Mammal Protection Act. |
Statute | |||||||
| AR - Exotic Pets - Subchapter 4. Ownership and Breeding of Wolves and Wolf-Dog Hybrids | A.C.A. § 20-19-401 - 408 | AR ST § 20-19-401 to 408 | This chapter of Arkansas laws concerns the regulation of wolves and wolf-dog hybrids kept as companion animals. Under the law, a "wolf-dog hybrid” means any animal which is publicly acknowledged by its owner as being the offspring of a wolf and domestic dog; however, no animal may be judged to be a wolf or wolf-dog hybrid based strictly on its appearance. The specific rabies vaccination requirements for wolf-dog hybrids are detailed as well as confinement requirements (i.e, specific fence dimensions). If a wolf or wolf-dog hybrid bites a person or injures or destroys another animal while out of its confined area, the person responsible for the adequate confinement of the animal upon conviction shall be guilty of a Class A misdemeanor. | Statute | ||||||
| Hatahley v. United States | 351 U.S. 173, 76 S.Ct. 745 (1956) | 100 L.Ed. 1065 (1956) |
In the case of Hatahley v. United States, 351 U.S. 173 (1956), a group of Navajo Indians living in Utah sued the government under the Federal Torts Claim Act, to recover the confiscation and destruction of horses and burros that were kept as pets and uniquely valued to the owners. The federal agents confiscated these animals and then sold them to a glue factory. The petitioners vehemently argued that these horses had unique and sentimental value to them, and served as a means of income to yield crops. Although the government agents argued that they were authorized to engage in this taking pursuant to the Utah Abandoned Horse Slaughter Act, the trial court ruled in favor of the petitioners. The court awarded the petitioners a judgment of $100,000 based on the fair market value, consequential damages for deprivation of use, and “mental pain and suffering” of the petitioners. The decision was reversed and remanded to the District Court with instructions to assess damages with sufficient particularity. |
Case | ||||||
| Queretaro |
Querétaro is one of the 32 Mexican federal unities and one of the smallest. It is a historical city, located in the middle of the country. Querétaro has laws in place to protect animals, such as the Animal Protection Law and provisions within the Criminal Code. |
Policy | ||||||||
| CA - Licenses - City dog license tags; compliance with division | West's Ann. Cal. Food & Agric. Code § 30502 | CA FOOD & AG § 30502 | This California statute provides that any dog tag issued pursuant to ordinance by a city or county will be valid provided it complies with this division, provides for the wearing of the license tag upon the collar of the dog, and provides for the keeping of a record which shall establish the identity of the person that owns or harbors the dog. | Statute | ||||||
| EU - Farming - Egg regulation, Number 557 | (EC) Number 557/2007 |
In May 2007, the Commission passed an egg regulation, Number 557, building upon the prior one (Number 1028) and delineating detailed marketing standards for eggs. The Regulation sets out rules, applicable to virtually all hen eggs sold in the EU, for the quality and weight grading, packaging, marking, storage, transport and presentation for retail sale of eggs, to ensure that they are marketed on an evenhanded, competitive basis. Though the regulation’s focus is primarily on egg marketing rather than animal welfare, it includes certain provisions that bear upon animal welfare. For instance, the regulation sets out detailed requirements for hen living conditions that must be met before eggs can qualify as “free range,” including open-air runs of low hen density.
|
Statute | |||||||
| Conservation Force v. Salazar | 715 F.Supp.2d 99 (D.D.C., 2010) | 2010 WL 2244122 (D.D.C.) |
Plaintiffs to this suit — organizations and individuals that support sustainable hunting of the Canadian Wood Bison — alleged that the Secretary of the Department of Interior violated several provisions of the ESA in his treatment of that species. Specifically, Plaintiffs contend that the Secretary failed to: (1) make a twelve-month finding as to the status of the Canadian Wood Bison upon petition and (2) process Plaintiffs’ applications to import bison hunting trophies. In granting the Defendant's motion to dismiss, the court found that Plaintiffs’ intent to sue letter did not specify to the Secretary that they intended to challenge his subsequent failure to issue a twelve-month finding. Since Plaintiffs gave the Secretary inadequate opportunity to review his actions and take corrective measures, the claim was dismissed. Plaintiffs — four individuals who each successfully hunted a Wood Bison in Canada — sought declaratory judgment against the Service under the ESA for failure to process their applications to import bison trophies. The court also held that the request for declaratory judgment was moot where Plaintiffs failed to demonstrate that they ever intended to again apply for import permits. |
Case | ||||||
| Murga v. Yarusso | 215 A.D.3d 979, 187 N.Y.S.3d 762 (2023) | No. 2021-00173, 605534/18, 187 N.Y.S.3d 762, 2023 N.Y. Slip Op. 02130, 2023 WL 3083108 (N.Y.A.D. 2 Dept., Apr. 26, 2023) | This New York case involved action to recover damages for personal injuries sustained after defendant's dog allegedly ran into street and pushed the plaintiff pedestrian to the ground. The plaintiff described the dog as acting like a "big puppy" and the dog did not bite the plaintiff. In contrast, the defendant testified that the dog was chasing a ball in the defendant's front yard and did not actually go in the street. Rather, defendant asserts that plaintiff tripped upon seeing the dog in the yard. The complaint alleged that the defendant was negligent in failing to keep the dog under control and to take protective measures knowing of the aggressive propensity of the dog. The Supreme Court, Suffolk County granted the defendant-owner's motion for summary judgment. On appeal by the plaintiff, the plaintiff also suggested that defendant might be liable for throwing the ball which caused the dog to run in the street and knock the plaintiff down. The Supreme Court, Appellate Division, held that the plaintiff cannot recover under such a theory, as New York does not recognize a common-law negligence cause of action to recover damages for an owner's alleged negligence in the handling of a dog. The summary judgment was affirmed as the court found the owner was not liable to pedestrian for injuries sustained. | Case | ||||||
| Derecho Animal Volume 7 Núm 4 |
|
Policy |