Results
| Title | Citation | Alternate Citation | Agency Citation | Summary | Type |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| England and Wales - Cruelty - Animal Welfare Act 2006 | Animal Welfare Act of 2006 | An Act establishing penalties for engaging in certain activities that are considered detrimental to animal welfare. Activities that constitute offenses include: causing an animal unnecessary suffering, mutilating an animal’s body, docking a dog’s tail (with certain limited exceptions), administering a poisonous or injurious substance to an animal, and engaging in or attending animal fighting. Nothing in the Act applies to anything lawfully done under the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986 or to anything which occurs in the normal course of fishing. | Statute | ||
| Shelby PROIE; Karen Munro; Patricia Sykes; Animal Legal Defense Fund, a non-profit corporation; and People for the Ethical Treat |
This case challenges a decision by the National Marine Fisheries Service to exclude from the listing of the Southern Resident killer whale population all captive members of that population and their progeny. By excluding the captive members from the endangered species list under the Endangered Species Act, plaintiffs contend that NMFS has failed to protect these animals from being harmed, harassed, and even killed, as otherwise prohibited under the ESA, and has acted in a manner that is arbitrary and capricious, an abuse of discretion, and not in accordance with law, within the meaning of the APA. |
Pleading | |||
| Houk v. State | 316 So. 3d 788 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2021) | 2021 WL 1685627 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. Apr. 29, 2021) | Appellant Crystal Houk challenges her convictions and sentences for animal cruelty and aggravated animal cruelty on several grounds. Appellant contends her dual convictions for those crimes violate double jeopardy because animal cruelty and aggravated animal cruelty are degree variants under section 775.021(4)(b)2. The conviction stems from Houk leaving her dog Gracie May in a car in a Walmart parking lot with the windows closed on a hot, humid day in Florida for over an hour. Apparently, Appellant had pressed a PVC pipe against the accelerator to keep the car accelerating since there was something wrong with the air conditioner. When employees gained entry to her vehicle, they discovered the A/C was actually blowing hot air and the dog was in great distress. Gracie died soon thereafter from heat stroke. A postmortem examination revealed her internal temperature was above 109.9 degrees. Houk was charged with aggravated animal cruelty and animal cruelty, tried by jury, and convicted. She was sentenced to concurrent terms of thirty-six months of probation on Count 1 and twelve months of probation on Count 2, each with a condition that she serve thirty days in jail. On appeal here, this court first found that the offenses of animal cruelty and aggravated animal cruelty satisfy the Blockburger same elements test and do not fall under the identical elements of proof or subsumed-within exceptions. However, as to the degree variant exception, the court agreed with Appellant that the offense of animal cruelty and aggravated animal cruelty are not based on entirely different conduct and a violation of one subsection would also constitute a violation of the other. Additionally, while another statutory section allows the charging of separate offenses for multiple acts or acts against more than one animal, the section does not authorize "the charging of separate offenses or the imposition of multiple punishments when a single act against one animal satisfies both subsections." Accordingly, the court agreed with Appellant and reversed her conviction for animal cruelty (while keeping the higher degree conviction of aggravated cruelty). | Case | |
| US - Livestock - Humane Handling and Treatment of Livestock; Notice of Solicitation of Information (Republication) | 1980 WL 89059 (F.R.) | FR Doc. 80-28060 (1980) |
The Food Safety and Quality Service is seeking information from all interested members of the public on the need for modification of certain provisions relating to the humane handling of livestock contained in the Federal meat inspection regulations. The Agency has been requested to allow the withholding of water from cattle for a period of time not in excess of 24 hours when such withholding is specified in the sales contract. The Agency has also been requested to allow the withholding of water from animals which are to be slaughtered within 24 hours from the time they arrive at the slaughter establishment. |
Administrative | |
| UT - Abandonment - § 58-28-601. Animal abandonment | U.C.A. 1953 § 58-28-601 | UT ST § 58-28-601 | This Utah statute provides that any animal abandoned at a veterinarian's office for a period of ten days may be sold or placed in the custody of the nearest humane society or county dog pound after giving notice to the owner. If no humane society or dog pound is located in the county, the animal may be disposed of in a humane manner. | Statute | |
| US - Wolf - Final Rule Designating the Northern Rocky Mountain Population of Gray Wolf as a Distinct Population Segment and Remo | FWSR6ES2008008; 9222011130000; ABC Code: C6 |
Establishes a distinct population segment (DPS) of the gray wolf in the Northern Rocky Mountains and removes the DPS from the list of endangered and threatened wildlife. |
Administrative | ||
| AU - Nature Conservation Act 1980 ( ACT) | Nature Conservation Act 1980 |
An Act to make provision for the protection and conservation of native animals and native plants, and for the preservation of areas for those purposes.
The Act creates the office of Conservator of Flora and Fauna and the
|
Statute | ||
| KS - Hesston - Breed - 2-125 PROHIBITION ON OWNERSHIP, KEEPING, OF CERTAIN DOG BREEDS. | HESSTON, KS., CITY CODE § 2-125, 2-126 (2007) |
In Hesston, Kansas, it is unlawful to keep, harbor, own, or possess a Staffordshire bull terrier, an American pit bull terrier, or a Rottweiler. Dogs that were registered with the city on the date of publication of this ordinance may be kept within the city limits subject to certain requirements, such as using a leash and muzzle outside, confining the dog in certain ways, posting “Beware of Dog” signs, maintaining liability insurance of $50,000, and taking identification photographs. A violation may result in a fine of up to $1,000 and/or imprisonment up to 30 days.
|
Local Ordinance | ||
| ANIMAL LEGAL DEFENSE FUND, CENTER FOR FOOD SAFETY, SHY 38, INC. & HOPE SANCTUARY, Plaintiffs, v. LAURA KELLY & DEREK SCHMIDT, Defendants | Slip Copy, No. CV 18-2657-KHV, 2020 WL 362626 (D. Kan. Jan. 22, 2020) | The Animal Legal Defense Fund (“ALDF”), Center for Food Safety (“CFS”), Shy 38, Inc. and Hope Sanctuary are interest groups that aim to protect and advocate for animals and the environment. These interest groups filed suit on December 4, 2018 against the Governor and Attorney General of Kansas seeking a declaratory judgment that the Kansas Animal and Field Crop and Research Facilities Protect Act was unconstitutional. The Act made it a crime to damage or destroy an animal facility or an animal, exercise control over an animal facility or animal from a facility, take photos or videos at an animal facility that that is not open to the public, and remain at an animal facility against the owner’s wishes. Both parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment. ALDF desired to conduct an undercover investigation in Kansas but refrained from doing so out of fear of criminal prosecution under the Act. The Plaintiffs alleged that the Act violated their First Amendment right to freedom of speech. To be subject to criminal prosecution under subsection (a) of K.S.A. 47-1827, the ALDF investigator had to cause physical damage to an animal or the animal facility or its property. The Plaintiffs did not allege that the ALDF investigator intended to cause such physical damage so the ALDF investigator was not at risk of criminal prosecution under the provision and, therefore, ALDF did not demonstrate standing to challenge subsection (a). ALDF alleged sufficient injury to support standing to challenge subsections (b), (c), and (d) of the Act. CFS, Shy 38, and Hope Sanctuary also had standing to challenge those subsections. The Court found that subsections (b), (c), and (d) regulated speech rather than conduct and was content-based rather than neutral-based. The Court ultimately concluded that the Plaintiffs were entitled to summary judgment on their claim that subsections (b), (c), and (d) violated the First Amendment. The Defendants were entitled to summary judgment on their lack of standing claim for subsection (a) and K.S.A. 47-1828. | Case | ||
| PA - Education - § 15-1523. Pupil's right of refusal; animal dissection | 24 P.S. § 15-1523 | PA ST 24 P.S. § 15-1523 | This Pennsylvania law states that public or nonpublic school pupils from kindergarten through grade twelve may refuse to dissect, vivisect, incubate, capture or otherwise harm or destroy animals or any parts thereof as part of their course of instruction. Schools must notify pupils and their parents/guardians of the right to decline participation. A pupil who chooses to refrain from participation or observation shall be offered an alternative education project. No pupil shall be discriminated against based on his or her decision to exercise rights under this law. | Statute |