Results
| Title | Citation | Alternate Citation | Agency Citation | Summary | Type |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| KY - Pig, feral - 150.186 Release of hog or pig into the wild prohibited; | KRS § 150.186 | KY ST § 150.186 | This Kentucky law prohibits the release of a hog or pig from the family Suidae into the wild. It also prohibits the importation, possession, or transportation in Kentucky any wild or feral pig, Eurasian or Russian boar, or any hybrid of these, whether born in the wild or captivity. | Statute | |
| US - AWA - Animal Welfare; Inspection, Licensing, and Procurement of Animals | 2004 WL 1561072 (F.R.) | Docket No. 97-121-3 |
Several changes and updates have been made to the licensing requirements, the procedures for licenses renewals, and restrictions upon acquisitions of dogs, cats, and other animals. Although there have been several minor changes, with little affect to the regulation, there have been some more significant changes as well. The new regulation seems to tighten restrictions, and provides specific guidelines for license applicants. |
Administrative | |
| Mongelli v. Cabral | 632 N.Y.S.2d 927 (City of Younkers Ct. 1995) | 166 Misc.2d 240 (1995) |
A couple boarded their pet bird with a couple who groomed and boarded birds while the wife underwent extensive medical treatment. There was a dispute between the owners and the boarders over whether the bird was a gift or the subject of long-term boarding. The court found that the boarders had not established that the bird had been a gift. |
Case | |
| GA - Breeding - Chapter 40-13-13. Animal Protection | GA ADC 40-13-13-.01 to .09 | Ga Comp. R. & Regs. 40-13-13-.01 to .09 | There regulations set out the requirements for licensing animal shelters, pet dealers, kennels, and stable operators. They also provide provisions for controlling disease and shipping animals into the state. | Administrative | |
| AL - Dog Fighting - Activities relating to fighting of dogs prohibited; violations; confiscation; | Ala. Code 1975 § 3-1-29 | AL ST § 3-1-29 | This Alabama statute constitutes the state's dogfighting law. Under the law, it is a class C felony for any person to own, possess, keep or train any dog with the intent that such dog shall be engaged in an exhibition of fighting with another dog; for amusement or gain, to cause any dog to fight with another dog, or cause any dogs to injure each other; or to permit any of the above acts. The law also makes it a class C felony to knowingly be present or be a spectator at dogfights. | Statute | |
| WA - Dangerous Dog - 16.08.040. Dog bites. Liability and Dangerous dogs and related provisions. | West's RCWA 16.08.010 - 110 | WA ST 16.08.010 - 110 | This Washington statute outlines the state's dangerous dog laws. Under the law, the owner or keeper of any dog shall be liable to the owner of any animal killed or injured by such dog for the amount of damages sustained in a civil action. Further, there is strict liability for the owner of any dog that bites any person while in a public place or lawfully on a private place including the property of the owner of such dog, regardless of the former viciousness of such dog or the owner's knowledge of such viciousness. However, proof of provocation of the attack by the injured person shall be a complete defense to an action for damages. | Statute | |
| Kuba v. 1-A Agr. Ass'n | 387 F.3d 850 (9th Cir., 2004) | 34 Envtl. L. Rep. 20, 119 (2004) |
Activist sued a state-created agricultural association under 42 USC § 1983 to challenge a rule that limited demonstrations to “free expression zones” outside a state-owned performance facility. The Court of Appeals held that the association was not entitled to Eleventh Amendment immunity. It held that the parking lots and walkways were public fora, and thus time, place and manner restrictions on speech had to be content-neutral and narrowly tailored to serve an important government interest. The Court held that the state did not have a significant interest in restricting protestors to these zones. The rule was not narrowly tailored enough to promote the association's interest in preventing traffic congestion, and restricted more speech than was necessary. Therefore, the rule unduly infringed free speech on its face. |
Case | |
| Argentina - Wildlife - Decreto 666, 1997 | Decreto 666, 1997 | This “Decreto” regulates Law No. 22,421, relating to the law for conservation of wildlife, emphasizing the management powers of the national enforcement authority, through the Secretariat of Natural Resources and Sustainable Development. This regulatory decree also regulates the practice of hunting and creates the National Registry of Hunters. The National Registry of Hunters deals in: sport hunting, commercial hunting, hunting with scientific or educational purposes, and hunting for control of harmful species. Other topics that Decreto 666 regulates include: sanctuaries, breeding stations for wildlife, import, export and interprovincial trade of wildlife and byproducts. In the latter, it is mandatory to register in the corresponding registry of the Ministry of Environment and Sustainable Development and to keep books that record the movement of such animals and products. It is also mandatory to supply the reports that are required and to facilitate access at all times of the authorized officials for inspection and control. The law created the Advisory Commission for Wildlife and its Habitat to propose solutions to problems relating to the sustainable use of wild fauna. The Ministry of Environment and Sustainable Development is the authority of enforcement with national scope. Its responsibility is to classify the wild fauna species, to set the corresponding tariffs for the registry of sport hunting, among other responsibilities. The National Service of health and agro-food quality (SENASA) is in charge of the sanitary control of wildlife subject to national and international trade. | Statute | ||
| Utah Animal Rights Coalition v. Salt Lake County | 566 F.3d 1236 (C.A.10 (Utah),2009) |
The plaintiffs-appellants (Utah Animal Rights Coalition (UARC) and five individuals) filed this 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claim for alleged violations of their First Amendment rights to free speech and to peaceably assemble after the individual plaintiffs attempted to protest a circus in South Jordan, Utah. The district court entered summary judgment against the plaintiffs. On appeal, this court held that, without a showing of harm, the UARC did not meet its burden to demonstrate an injury in fact. The court did find that the individuals properly pleaded harm to establish standing. With regard to the § 1983 action, this court ruled that the district court correctly determined that county officials were entitled to judgment as a matter of law. |
Case | ||
| State ex rel. Missouri Dept. of Conservation v. Judges of Circuit Court of Reynolds County | 91 S.W.3d 602 (Mo. 2002) |
Sixteen residents who violated portions of the wildlife code challenged the hearings that they received before a panel from the Department of Conservation, which were not conducted in an evidentiary fashion or recorded. The Court found that, pursuant to the rulemaking authority granted under the State constitution to the Department of Conservation, the regulations provide for noncontested hearings unless the permitee is entitled by law to a contested hearing (a "contested case" is a proceeding before an agency in which legal rights, duties or privileges of specific parties are required by law to be determined after hearing). The Court found that no such law applies to this case, citing a case that determined hunting is not a fundamental right. |
Case |