Results
Displaying 11 - 20 of 6754
| Title | Citation | Alternate Citation | Agency Citation | Summary | Type | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| IPPL v. Institute for Behavioral Research, Inc. | 799 F.2d 934 (1986) |
Private individuals and organizations brought action seeking to be named guardians of medical research animals seized from organization whose chief was convicted of state animal cruelty statute violations. The United States District Court for the District of Maryland, John R. Hargrove, J., dismissed action, and individuals and organizations appealed. The Court of Appeals, Wilkinson, Circuit Judge, held that: (1) individuals and organizations lacked standing to bring action, and (2) Animal Welfare Act did not confer private cause of action. Case discussed in topic: US Animal Welfare Act. |
Case | |||
| IN - Cattle Slaughter - CHHATTISGARH AGRICULTURAL CATTLE PRESERVATION ACT, 2004 | 25 of 2006 | The Act, specific to the state of Chhattisgarh, prohibits the slaughter of agricultural cattle—cows, calves, bulls, bullocks and male and female buffaloes. The law criminalizes the possession and sale of beef, and the transport of agricultural cattle from the state for the purpose of slaughter. The state government shall make rules for the economic rehabilitation of persons affected by the Act. | Statute | |||
| City of Columbiana v. Simpson | --- N.E.3d ----, 2019 WL 4897158 (Ohio Ct. App., 2019) | 2019-Ohio-4086 (2019) | Richard G. Simpson, Appellant, lived in a residential district in Columbiana, Ohio. Simpson kept eight hens, a chicken coop, and an enclosure on his property for approximately seven years. On July of 2016, Simpson was informed that keeping chickens in the district he lived in was a zoning violation, however, Simpson found no prohibition in the Code regarding the keeping of chickens in a residential district. The city sent Simpson violation notices and instructed him to remove the chickens from the property. Simpson appealed the violation to the Planning Committee. On June 20, 2017 the City Council voted to place a resolution on the ballot for voters to decide whether chickens could be kept in residential districts. The resolution failed at the general election. A second notice was sent to Simpson and Simpson refused to remove the chickens from his property. The City instituted an action for declaratory judgment and injunctive relief on March 13, 2018. The trial court held that the keeping of chickens was prohibited in the City’s residential districts and that the city ordinances were valid on their face and were not arbitrarily or capriciously applied. Simpson appealed. Simpson argued that keeping the chickens did not constitute an agricultural use or poultry husbandry because he kept them as a hobby and therefore does not violate any of the city ordinances. The Court did not agree and concluded that the keeping of chickens fell within the definition of agriculture and was, therefore, prohibited based on the ordinances. Simpson next argued that since he acquired the chicken and coop prior to the City applying the prohibitions, it was a legal non-conforming use and that the zoning code contained no language that would have put him on notice that such property was not permitted on his real property. The Court concluded that there was no error by the trial court in holding that Simpson’s use of his land was not a legally conforming use. Finally, Simpson argued that the one of the city ordinances was arbitrary and unreasonable because there was no evidence of the chickens, coup, or enclosure constituting a nuisance. The Court concluded that a city is not required to show that a property owner’s proposed use constitutes a nuisance in order to establish the constitutionality of the ordinance. The Court found that the ordinance was neither arbitrary nor unreasonable and bears a substantial relation to the public health. The ordinance was a valid exercise of the City’s police power. The Court ultimately held that the City ordinance prohibited the keeping of chickens in residential districts. The prohibition was inferred from reading the ordinance in concert with other Code sections. The judgment of the trial court was affirmed. | Case | ||
| TX - Dangerous - Subchapter E: Dangerous Wild Animals | V. T. C. A., Health & Safety Code § 822.101 - 116 | TX HEALTH & S § 822.101 - 116 | Chapter 822, Subchapter E regulates the keeping of dangerous wild animals. It imposes a registration requirement upon the owner of a dangerous wild animal and also sets forth insurance requirements. One thing to note is that Texas animal cruelty laws do not apply to these wild animals. | Statute | ||
| In the Matter of the Application of Richard M. COPLAND, as an Executor of the estate of Lenore Lewis Abels, Deceased | 988 N.Y.S.2d 458 | 2014 N.Y. Slip Op. 24172 | Co-executor of an estate petitioned the Westchester County Surrogate's Court for a decree in accordance with EPTL 7–8.1[d] reducing the amount of money to be transferred from the estate to the trustees of a testamentary pet trust established under the decedent's will. Since the decedent gave very specific instructions as to how she wanted her cats to be cared for and the petition was in opposition to the decedent’s wishes, the court denied the reduction. | Case | ||
| U.S. v. Street | 257 F.3d 869 (8th Cir.2001) |
The court held that the "second or subsequent conviction" component of the BGEPA applies to separate convictions charged in a single indictment. For further discussion on the enhanced penalty provision of the BGEPA, see Detailed Discussion of Eagle Act. |
Case | |||
| Pitts v. State | 918 S.W.2d 4 (Tex. App. 1995). |
Right of appeal is only available for orders that the animal be sold at public auction. The statutory language does not extend this right to seizure orders. |
Case | |||
| Derecho Animal Volume 12 num 1 |
|
Policy | ||||
| SC - Restaurant, animal - 9-3 OUTDOOR PET DINING | SC ADC 61-25 | S.C. CODE REGS. 61-25 | This South Carolina regulation concerns outdoor dining with pets. The regulation first defines pets as domesticated cats, dogs, and ferrets. A retail food service establishment may allow customers to be accompanied by pets in an outdoor dining area provided the retail food service establishment complies with the requirements of this section and all other applicable sections of this regulation. Among other requirements include availability of cleaning supplies and sanitizers in the outdoor pet dining area, signage indicating that the area is "pet dining friendly," a separate outdoor entrance to the dining area, a requirement that owners keep pets restrained at all times, and a prohibition on pets on the table, countertop, or other food contact surface. | Administrative | ||
| WI - Dog - Consolidated Dog Laws | W. S. A. 1.10; 29.184; 29.921; 29.927; 29.971; 169.20 - 36; 173.01 - 40; 174.001 - 15 | WI ST 1.10; 29.184; 29.921; 29.927; 29.971; 169.20 - 36; 173.01 - 40; 174.001 - 15 | These Wisconsin statutes comprise the state's dog laws. Among the provisions include dog licensing provisions, hunting laws impacting dogs, and seizure of dogs by humane officers. | Statute |