Results
| Title | Citation | Alternate Citation | Agency Citation | Summary | Type | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| CA - Fur - § 996. Fur bearing animals raised in captivity; ownership; protection of law | West's Ann. Cal. Civ. Code § 996 | CA CIVIL § 996 | This California law provides that any furbearing animal whether born in captivity or brought into captivity for the purpose of pelting is regarded as personal property, the same as other domestic animals. | Statute | |||||||
| Slavin v. US | 403 F.3d 522 (8th Cir. 2005) |
Plaintiff challenged the constitutionality of the Animal Welfare Act after it created a regulation that prohibited the interstate or foreign commerce transport of birds that would be used in fighting ventures. She argued that the regulators did not consider whether fighting ventures were legal in the state where the birds were being transported to. However, the regulation was considered constitutional since under terms of section 2156(b), only the foreign and interstate transport of the birds was prohibited. |
Case | ||||||||
| EU - Farming - Commission Directive 2002/4/EC on the registration of establishments keeping laying hens | Commission Directive 2002/4/EC |
This EU commission directive concerns Council Directive 1999/74/EC on the registration of establishments keeping laying hens. It mandates that Member States establish a registration system for egg producers covered by Directive 199/74/EC. |
Statute | ||||||||
| Lawton v. Steele | 14 S.Ct. 499 (1894) | 152 U.S. 133 (1894) |
Plaintiffs sued defendant fish and game protectors to recover damages for the loss of their seized fishing nets. At issue was the New York statute that prohibited fishing in the area where plaintiffs were fishing and proscribed seizure of fishing gear used in violation of the statute. The U.S. Supreme Court held that such a statute is a constitutional exercise of state police power, as the protection of fish and game has always been within the proper domain of police power. Further, the court found the legislature acted properly in providing a seizure component to the statute to control what it termed a "public nuisance." |
Case | |||||||
| US - Endangered Species - Subpart I - Interagency Cooperation | 50 C.F.R. § 17.94 | This section of the ESA regulations provides that all federal agencies must insure that any action authorized, funded, or carried out by them is not likely to result in the destruction or adverse modification of the constituent elements essential to the conservation of the listed species within these defined Critical Habitats. It also gives greater definition of what constitutes "Critical Habitat" and how agencies and interested parties can locate the boundaries of specified critical habitats. | Administrative | ||||||||
| Mexico City Constitution Article 13 | Article 13, Constitution of Mexico City |
Excerpt Article 13 A. Right to a healthy environment |
Statute | ||||||||
| Derecho Animal Volume 8 Núm 4 |
|
Policy | |||||||||
| Test Map | Other jurisdictions can be added here in the summary or ... | State map | |||||||||
| Susan, Russell and Mary Phillips v. San Luis Obispo County Department of Animal Regulation | In this petition for a rehearing, respondents argued that the appellate court's decision (Phillips v. Department, 183 Cal.App.3d 372 (1986)) misstates crucial facts concerning the operation of the subject ordinance; that hearings required under the Atascadero ordinances apply to all dogs, not just strays; and that the appellate court may have been misled in its decision to conclude that no notice had been required. | Pleading | |||||||||
| Richard B. Rappaport v. Max E. McElroy, D.V.M., Sherwood Veterinary Clinic, Inc. and Does 1 through 30, Inclusive |
In this California case, plaintiff sued a veterinarian for giving his exotic pet (a Serval cat), a flea treatment known to be toxic to cats. The veterinary malpractice action focused on defendant’s negligence in failing to exercise a reasonable level of knowledge and skill ordinarily possessed by others practicing veterinary medicine. In fact, plaintiff contended that it is well known in the field and indicated by the manufacturer of Spotton, that the drug should not be used on felines. Plaintiff prayed for damages in the amount of $25,000, which included lost wages, the commercial value of the cat, and loss of companionship, among other things. |
Pleading |