Results
| Title | Citation | Alternate Citation | Agency Citation | Summary | Type |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| McQuaker v. Goddard | [1940] 1 KB 687 |
A camel is not to be regarded as a wild animal by the common law as a camel 'is, in all countries, a domestic animal, an animal that has become trained to the uses of man, and a fortiori accustomed to association with man.' Whether an animal is to be regarded as wild or domestic is a question of law, and is to be judged according to the genus or class of which it belongs, not the characteristics of the individual animal. |
Case | ||
| US - Marine Mammals - Endangered Fish and Wildlife; Notice of Intent to Prepare an Environmental Impact Statement | 2005 WL 41294 (F.R.) | FR Doc. 05-525 |
NMFS will be preparing an EIS to analyze the potential impacts of applying new criteria in guidelines to determine what constitutes a ``take'' of a marine mammal under the Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA) and Endangered Species Act (ESA) as a result of exposure to anthropogenic noise in the marine environment. This notice describes the proposed action and possible alternatives and also describes the proposed scoping process. |
Administrative | |
| CA - Testing, animal - Chapter 2. Deposit for Keeping. Article 1. General Provisions. | West's Ann. Cal. Civ. Code § 1833 - 1840 | CA CIVIL § 1833 - 1840 | The following statutes requires that a research facility which houses living animals shall provide said animals with veterinary care, food, housing, and treat each animal with kindness. Any violation of the statute could result in civil liability. In addition, the statutes provide that an alternative testing method must be utilized when scientifically validated, recommended by the ICCVAM, and adopted by the appropriate federal agency. A new section from 2020 prohibits a manufacturer from importing for profit, selling, or offering for sale in this state, any cosmetic, if the cosmetic was developed or manufactured using an animal test that was conducted or contracted by the manufacturer, or any supplier of the manufacturer, on or after January 1, 2020. | Statute | |
| Pearson v. U.S. Dept. of Agriculture | Slip Copy, 2011 WL 559083 (C.A.6,2011) |
Petitioner seeks review of the decision and order of the Secretary of the USDA, terminating his license to own and exhibit wild animals (82 lions, tigers, and bears), issuing a cease and desist order, and imposing civil sanctions in the amount of $93,975 in violation of the AWA. In 2006, inspection showed 280 incidents of non-compliance. On appeal, the Sixth Circuit first held that there was no abuse of discretion in failing to grant the continuance after a fire at Petitioner's home because he is unable to resulting establish prejudice. Further, the Court discounted Petitioner's challenge that the revocation of his license was not supported where the court found the evidence "substantial, perhaps overwhelming." |
Case | ||
| Decision Shrimp Farm in Cayapas Natural Reserve - Ecuador - Do not publish yet | CAUSA No. 0507-12-EP | Case | |||
| Chile - Slaughter - Ley 21.3016 | Ley 21.3016 | This law modifies Law No. 19.162, increasing sanctions for violations of animal health regulations in slaughterhouses, and information falsification in the livestock and meat traceability system. This law increases monetary fees from 100 monthly tax units (UTM) to 500 UTM. In addition it adds a paragraph to artiicle 8 of Law No. 19.162 stating the following: "The person who, in an export process, incurs violations of this law related to animal health or traceability will be sanctioned with a fine of 100 to 1,000 monthly tax units and with the confiscation of the products. Additionally, they will be sanctioned with the prohibition of export between three to five years. In case of recidivism within the five years following the end of the prohibition, the conduct will be sanctioned with the perpetual prohibition to export. In the case of a legal person, the same sanction will fall on the natural person or persons controlling the said company and the other companies they control." | Statute | ||
| OK - Police and Dogs - § 36.1. Police dog handlers--Civil liability | 22 Okl.St.Ann. § 36.1 | OK ST T. 22 § 36.1 | This Oklahoma statute deals with the civil liability of police dog handlers. Under the statute, a police dog handler who uses a dog in the line of duty in accordance with the policies and standards established by the law enforcement agency that employs the officer, will not be civilly liable for any damages arising from the use of the dog. The police dog handler may only be liable for exceptions listed in the Governmental Tort Claims Act. | Statute | |
| Revista Brasileira de Direito Animal Volume 17 |
TABLE OF CONTENTS EDITORIAL /FOREWORDS Heron Santana Gordilho ……………………………………………….9 Doutrina Internacional/International Articles |
Policy | |||
| MD - Prince George's County - Breed - § 3-185.01 Pit Bull Terriers. | PRINCE GEORGE'S COUNTY, MD., §§ 3-101, 3-116.01, 3-185.01 (1997) |
Prince George's County, Maryland prohibits owning or keeping a Pit Bull Terrier with exceptions. If the person owned the dog prior to November 1, 1996, then s/he may continue to keep it if s/he complies with certain conditions, such as registering it with the Administrator of Animal Control and keeping an ID tag on the dog and keeping the dog inside or on a secure leash. Show dogs are allowed into the county on a temporary basis. Dogs that have been trained for security, search and rescue, or for police or fire services are exempt. A violation of this ordinance may result in a fine of up to $1,000 or be sentenced to up to 6 months in prison. In addition, if a Pit Bull injures or kills a person or a domestic animal without provocation, then it will be destroyed. |
Local Ordinance | ||
| CT - Domestic Violence - § 46b-15. Relief from physical abuse by family | C.G.S.A. § 46b-15 | CT ST § 46b-15 | Under this Connecticut law, any family or household member who has been subjected to a continuous threat of present physical pain or physical injury by another family may apply to the Superior Court for an order of protection . Under subsection (b), The court may also make orders for the protection of any animal owned or kept by the applicant including, but not limited to, an order enjoining the respondent from injuring or threatening to injure such animal. | Statute |