Results
| Title | Citation | Alternate Citation | Agency Citation | Summary | Type |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Canada - Yukon Statutes. Animal Protection Act | R.S.Y. 2002, c. 6, s. 1 - 14 | This set of laws comprises the Yukon, Canada Animal Protection Act. The Act provides that no person shall cause or allow an animal to be in distress. Any person who contravenes this Act is guilty of an offence and liable on summary conviction to a fine of not more than $500 and, in default of payment, to imprisonment up to six months, or to both fine and imprisonment. A judge may also prohibit a person convicted of an offence under the Act from owning an animal or from having charge of an animal for any specified time period. The Act also outlines the power of peace officers to seize animals in distress as well as those powers of humane societies to provide care for such animals. | Statute | ||
| NE - Bridgeport - Title IX: General Regulations (Chapter 90: Animals) | City of Bridgeport, Nebraska, Code of Ordinances §§ 90.06, 90.99 |
These Bridgeport, Nebraska ordinances provide prohibitions and penalties related to dogfighting, cockfighting, bearbaiting or pitting. |
Local Ordinance | ||
| Midcoast Fishermen's Ass'n v. Gutierrez | 592 F.Supp.2d 40 (D.D.C.,2008) | 2008 WL 5401534 (D.D.C.) | Plaintiffs filed suit seeking review of the Department of Commerce’s (the “Agency”) decision to deny their petition for emergency action to address continued overfishing in the Northeastern multispecies fisheries by excluding midwater trawl vessels from groundfish closed areas. After the administrative record was filed, and the Agency certified that it was the administrative record for the decision, Plaintiffs moved to compel completion of the administrative record. The United States District Court, District of Columbia denied Plaintiffs’ motion, finding that Plaintiffs failed to show that the Agency blatantly ignored specific readily available information, the fact that the Agency based its decision on data from a two year chronological time span did not render the record incomplete, supplementing the record with bycatch data from an earlier time period would not provide any background information useful to the resolution of the case, and that the record contained sufficient information to allow the Court to determine what process the Agency followed in making its decision. | Case | |
| Monell v. Department of Social Services | 436 US 658 (1978) |
Female employees of the Department of Social Services and the Board of Education of the City of New York brought an action challenging the policies of those bodies in requiring pregnant employees to take unpaid leaves of absence before those leaves were required for medical reasons. The decision of this case addresses issues of immunity. |
Case | ||
| SC - Initiative - Amendment 1, Right to Hunt and Fish | Amendment 1, Right to Hunt and Fish (2010) (passed) |
The legislature summary for the proposed amendment states: "[a] joint resolution to propose an amendment to Article I of the Constitution of South Carolina, 1895, relating to the declaration of rights under the state's constitution, by adding Section 25 so as to provide that hunting and fishing are valuable parts of the state's heritage, important for conservation, and a protected means of managing nonthreatened wildlife; to provide that the citizens of South Carolina shall have the right to hunt, fish, and harvest wildlife traditionally pursued, subject to laws and regulations promoting sound wildlife conservation and management as prescribed by the General Assembly; and to specify that this section must not be construed to abrogate any private property rights, existing state laws or regulations, or the state's sovereignty over its natural resources." It passed with 89% voting "yes." |
Statute | ||
| Revista Brasileira de Direito Animal Volume 11 |
Sumário / Table of Contents
|
Policy | |||
| State v. Schuler (Unpublished) | 1997 WL 76337 (Unpub. Minn. 1997) |
This Minnesota lawsuit arose from the enforcement of a Little Canada ordinance prohibiting the keeping of more than three adult dogs in any residential dwelling within the city's residentially zoned districts. In reviewing a challenge to the law, the court first noted that a city's police power allows it both to regulate the keeping of animals, and to define nuisances and provide for their abatement. Further, municipal ordinances are presumptively constitutional and the burden rests on the party challenging it. Here, Schuler failed to offer evidence that regulating the number of dogs per household was unrelated to controlling the problems of dog noise and odor as they affect the health and general welfare of the community. |
Case | ||
| Housing Authority of the City of New London v. Tarrant | 1997 WL 30320 (Conn. 1997) |
A mother renting housing alleged that her son was "mentally challenged" and required the companionship of a dog pursuant to Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act. The court rejected the tenant's allegations that her son had a qualifying mental disability, reasoning that the son received high marks in school prior to the commencing of the eviction proceedings. The court held that without evidence of a mental or physical disability, no reasonable accommodation is required. |
Case | ||
| AK - Rabies - 7 AAC 27.022. Rabies vaccination and quarantine. | Alaska Admin. Code tit. 7, § 27.022 | 7 AAC 27.022 | This Alaska regulation provides that a dog, cat, or ferret is required to be vaccinated for rabies in accordance with schedules in the Compendium of Animal Rabies Prevention and Control, 2011. | Administrative | |
| Am. Anti-Vivisection Soc'y v. United States Dept. of Agric. | --- F.Supp.3d ----, 2018 WL 6448635 (D.D.C. Dec. 10, 2018). | 2018 WL 6448635 | The American Anti-Vivisection Society and the Avian Welfare Coalition sued the Department of Agriculture and its Secretary alleging that the Department's failure to promulgate bird-specific regulations is unreasonable, unlawful, and arbitrary and capricious in violation of the APA. The Plaintiffs sought court-ordered deadlines by which the Department must propose such rules. The Department moved to dismiss the Plaintiff's claims arguing that the Plaintiffs lack standing to sue, that it is not required by law to promulgate regulations for birds, and that it has not taken a final action reviewable by the court. The District Court ultimately held that, although the Plaintiffs have standing to sue, both of their claims fail. The Department is not required by the Animal Welfare Act to issue avian-specific standards; rather, it must to issue welfare standards that are generally applicable to animals. Secondly, although the Department has not taken any action to develop avian-specific standards, that does not mean that will not do so in the future. The District Court granted the department's motion to dismiss. | Case |