Results
| Title | Citation | Alternate Citation | Agency Citation | Summary | Type |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sweden - Cruelty - The Sweden Animal Welfare Act | SFS 1998:56 |
The Swedish Animal Welfare Act applies to the care and treatment of domestic animals, and other animals if they are kept in captivity or are used for any of the purposes referred to in section 19 (generally, scientific uses). It provides that animals shall be treated well and shall be protected from unnecessary suffering and disease, among other things. |
Statute | ||
| VIVA! International Voice for Animals, et al v. Adidas Promotional Retail Operations, Inc., et al | In this California case, plaintiffs sued defendants for injunctive and declaratory relief, claiming that defendants import the kangaroo leather in violation of section Penal Code section 653o—and thus are committing an unlawful business practice (Bus. & Prof. Code, § 17200 et seq.). Section 653o bans the import of products made from certain animals, including kangaroos into California. Defendants import and sell in California markets athletic shoes made from kangaroo leather. Defendants moved for summary judgment, arguing that section 653o is preempted by federal law under the doctrine of conflict preemption. The trial court agreed and granted the motion. The appellate court also agreed, finding that the statute as applied to defendants in this case conflicts with federal law and with substantial federal objectives of persuading Australian federal and state governments to impose kangaroo population management programs, in exchange for allowing the importation of kangaroo products. The accompanying regulations set forth a comprehensive national policy for the protection of endangered species such as the three kangaroo species involved in this case. Application of section 653o would stand as an obstacle to the accomplishment and execution of the objectives of Congress if applied to the defendants. | Pleading | |||
| KS - Rehabilitation - 32-953. Rehabilitation permit | K. S. A. 32-953 | KS ST 32-953 | This Kansas law states that a rehabilitation permit is required to perform wildlife rehabilitation services. | Statute | |
| AU - Cruelty - Animal Welfare Act (ACT Primary Act) | Animal Welfare Act 1992 | The Australian Capital Territory enacted this Act 'for the promotion of animal welfare and for related purposes'. The Act is enforced by the RSPCA ACT and generally covers domestic animals. | Statute | ||
| HI - Honolulu - Chapter 7: Animals and Fowl (Article 1: Cockfighting and Related Equipment) | Revised Ordinances of Honolulu §§ 7-1.1 - 7-1.3 |
This Honolulu ordinance prohibits any person from engaging or participating in a cockfighting exhibition. This ordinance also prohibits gaffs or slashers or any other sharp instrument from being attached to or in place of the natural spur on a gamecock or other fighting fowl. Any person violating any provision of this article shall be punished by a fine of not less than $250 and not exceeding $1,000 or by imprisonment not exceeding thirty days, or by both. |
Local Ordinance | ||
| Benningfield v. Zinsmeister | 367 S.W.3d 561 (Ky.,2012) | 2012 WL 2361778 |
An 8-year-old boy and his sister were walking down a street when they were approached by a Rottweiler. Scared, the boy ran and was attacked by the dog, which caused the boy to suffer serious injuries. As a result, the mother of the child sued the owner of the dog and the landlord of the house where the dog resided under a Kentucky dog bite statute. The landlord won at both the trial and the appellate court level. Upon granting discretionary review for the case, the Kentucky Supreme Court investigated whether or not a landlord could be held strictly liable under the dog bite statute. The Court ruled that a landlord could, but only if the landlord permitted the dog to stay on or about the premises. Since the attack did not occur on or about the premises, the landlord was not found liable under the dog bite statute. |
Case | |
| NY - Police dog - § 122-c. Transport of police work dogs injured in the line of duty | McKinney's General Municipal Law § 122-c | NY GEN MUN § 122-c | This New York law from 2015 states that an emergency medical service paramedic or emergency medical service technician may transport any police work dog injured in the line of duty to a veterinary clinic or similar such facility provided, however, that there are no persons requiring medical attention or transport at such time. | Statute | |
| MN - Initiatives - Amendment 2 (right to hunt) | Amendment 2 (1998) | This ballot measure asked whether the Minnesota Constitution should be amended to affirm that hunting and fishing and the taking of game and fish are a valued part of our heritage that shall be forever preserved for the people and shall be managed by law and regulation for the public good. The measure was passed in 1998 by 77.2% of voters. | Statute | ||
| 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 | |
| WV - Dangerous - § 20-2-16. Dogs chasing deer | W. Va. Code, § 20-2-16 | WV ST § 20-2-16 | This West Virginia statute states that, except as provided in § 20-2-5j enacted in 2020, no person may permit or use his or her dog to hunt or chase deer. A natural resources police officer shall take into possession any dog known to have unlawfully hunted or chased deer. If the owner of the dog can be determined, the dog shall be returned to the owner. If the owner of the dog cannot be determined, the natural resources police officer shall deliver the dog to the appropriate county humane officer or facility consistent with the provisions of this code. | Statute |