Results
| Title | Citation | Alternate Citation | Summary | Type | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| CA - Damages - Injuries to animals; exemplary damages | West's Ann. Cal. Civ. Code § 3340 | CA CIVIL § 3340 | Exemplary damages may be given for injuries to animals committed in disregard of humanity either willfully or through gross negligence. | Statute | ||||||
| EU - Farming - Council Directive 1999/74/EC laying down minimum standards for the protection of laying hens | Council Directive 1999/74/EC |
The Directive lays down minimum standards for the protection of laying hens. It does not apply to establishments with fewer than 350 laying hens or establishments rearing breeding laying hens. Such establishments are, however, subject to the requirements of Directive 98/58/EC. |
Statute | |||||||
| Sierra Club v. Clark | 755 F.2d 608 (8th Cir. 1985) |
The Government issued regulations which allowed for the sport hunting of the Eastern Timber Wolf (otherwise known as the gray wolf) in Minnesota, where the wolf was listed as threatened. The court held that such regulations were invalid because the Endangered Species Act, Section 4(d) required that such regulations must be "for the conservation" of the wolf, which means for the best interest of the wolf. The court found that the hunting of the wolf in this manner did not have the motive of the best interest of the wolf in mind. |
Case | |||||||
| White v. U.S. | 601 F.3d 545 (C.A.6 (Ohio), 2010) | 2010 WL 1404377 (C.A.6 (Ohio)) |
The Plaintiff-Appellants are citizens (show bird breeders, feed store owners, and game bird judges) who allege that the AWA amendments to § 2156 concerning animal fighting ventures have caused them various individual and collective injuries. The plaintiffs-appellants allege that these provisions are unconstitutional insofar as they constitute a bill of attainder; violate the principles of federalism contained in, inter alia, the Ninth, Tenth, and Eleventh Amendments to the United States Constitution; and unduly impinge on the plaintiffs-appellants' First Amendment right of association, constitutional right to travel, and Fifth Amendment right to due process for deprivations of property and liberty. The district court dismissed the lawsuit for lack of Article III standing. The Sixth Circuit held that while economic injuries may constitute an injury-in-fact for the purposes of Article III standing, the plaintiffs' alleged economic injuries due to restrictions on cockfighting are not traceable only to the AWA. Additionally, because the AWA does not impose any penalties without a judicial trial, it is not a bill of attainder. The decision of the district court was affirmed. |
Case | ||||||
| Brazil's ban on live cattle exports | 5000325-94.2017.4.03.6135 | This is the case in which a court in Brazil banned live cattle exports from all Brazilian ports based on animal welfare concerns. It is the result of a lawsuit filed by the NGO "Foro Nacional para la Protección y Defensa de los Animales," who requested that this type of animal transport to be banned. In 2018, the court granted a temporary injunction prohibiting live cattle exports. However, this injunction was invalidated by a superior tribunal. In her opinion, the judge stated that "animals are not things. They are sentient living beings—individuals who feel hunger, thirst, pain, cold, anguish, and fear. " In its holding, the judge compares the treatment of animals to the treatment suffered by humans during the slave trade, stating that non-human animals suffer the same treatment in the name of commercial development. Furthermore, the judge concluded that the necessary methods to guarantee the health and well-being of animals in this type of transport were not being adopted and urged for the harmonization between the interests of human animals (economic interest or interest in providing food for the population) with the ethics that must preside over their relations with non-human animals, encouraging the country to be at the forefront in abolishing inappropriate handling and eradicating all types of cruelty against animals. Even though this is a landmark decision, it is important to mention that this is not a final decision constituting legal precedent, and a higher court can invalidate it if it is appealed. | Case | |||||||
| Derecho Animal Volume 9 Núm 4 |
|
Policy | ||||||||
| KY -Wills and Trusts - 386B.4-080 Trust for care of animal | KRS § 386B.4-020; 386B.4-080 | KY ST § 386B.4-020; 386B.4-080 | A trust may be created to provide for the care of an animal alive during the settlor's lifetime. The trust terminates on the death of the animal or, if the trust was created to provide for the care of more than one (1) animal alive during the settlor's lifetime, on the death of the last surviving animal. | Statute | ||||||
| Dixon v. City of Woodland | This is an order for a settlment regarding police shooting a dog. | Pleading | ||||||||
| AZ - Dog - Arizona Consolidated Dog Laws | A. R. S. § 11-1001 - 1029; § 28-2422 - 2422.02; § 17-309 | AZ ST § 11-1001 - 1029; AZ ST § 28-2422 - 2422.02; AZ ST § 17-309 | These Arizona statutes comprise the laws relating to dogs and animal bites. Included are provisions related to registration, collaring, and vaccination of dogs. With regard to dangerous dogs, Arizona law provides that a person with knowledge of a dog's vicious propensity must also keep the dog in an enclosed yard or confined area with a sign indicating the dog's vicious tendencies. | Statute | ||||||
| Massachusetts 1854-1859: Chapter 96: An act to prevent cruelty to animals | Mass. Gen, Laws ch. 96, §§ 1-2 (1859) | Section 1 from Chapter 96 of Massachusetts General Laws of 1859 covers cruelty to animals. Specifically, the law covers what qualifies as cruelty to animals and the punishment for it. | Statute |