Results

Displaying 31 - 40 of 6018
Title Citation Alternate Citation Summary Type
People v. Parker (Unpublished) 1999 WL 33435342 (Unpublished Mich. 1999)

Defendants-appellees, who were bound over on the charge of knowingly attending an animal fight and of knowingly organizing, promoting, or collecting money for the fighting of an animal, filed a motion to suppress evidence and motions to quash the information. The trial court granted the motions and dismissed the case. The prosecution appealed and the appellate court found that there was sufficient evidence to create an issue of fact, and that evidence that had been obtained in violation of defendant Parker's Fourth Amendment rights was admissible against all defendants except Parker. Finally, as to the defendants' challenge that the statute was unconstitutionally vague and overbroad, the court declared that it had already determined that the language was neither vague nor overbroad. Reversed and remanded for trial. 

Case
White v Diocese of Buffalo, N.Y 138 A.D.3d 1470 (N.Y. App. Div. 2016) 2016 WL 1710974 (N.Y. App. Div. 2016) Plaintiff, Rosemary White brought action against the Defendant, Sacred Heart Roman Catholic Church seeking damages for injuries she sustained when she was bitten by a priests’ dog, at premises owned by the church. White brought the action claiming negligent supervision and retention of the priest who owned dog. The church moved to dismiss, and White moved for summary judgment. The New York Supreme Court, Erie County, granted the church's motion for dismissal, and denied White’s motion. White appealed and the New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division, held that the church was not liable for negligent supervision or retention of the priest. The Appellate Division, reasoned that the Supreme Court, Erie County, properly granted the church’s motion to dismiss White’s complaint for failure to state a cause of action. The Court stated that to the extent White alleged a theory of negligent supervision and retention of the priest in her bill of particulars, the “purpose of the bill of particulars is to amplify the pleadings . . . , and [it] may not be used to supply allegations essential to a cause of action that was not pleaded in the complaint.” Therefore, the order from the Supreme Court was affirmed. Case
MD - Ecoterrorism - Title 6. Crimes Against Property. MD Code, Criminal Law, § 6-208 MD CRIM LAW § 6-208

This law reflects Maryland's "ecoterrorism"/animal research interference law. A person may not break and enter a research facility without the permission of the research facility with the intent to: obtain unauthorized control over research property; alter or eradicate research property; damage or deface research property; move research property in a manner intended to cause harm to it; destroy or remove research property; or engage in conduct that results in the removal of research property. Violation of the law is a felony with imprisonment of up to 5 years or a fine of up to $5,000, or both.

Statute
US - Meat - Chapter 12. Meat Inspection. 21 U.S.C.A. § 601 - 695

The Federal Meat Inspection Act of 1906 (FMIA) was enacted to prevent adulterated or misbranded meat and meat products from being sold as food and to ensure that meat and meat products are slaughtered and processed under sanitary conditions. The Act requires covered meat products to be labeled and packaged in accordance with the chapter to effectively regulate commerce and protect the health and welfare of consumers.

Statute
Moore v. People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, Inc. 932 N.E.2d 448 (Ill.App. 1 Dist., 2010) 2010 WL 2266081 (Ill.App. 1 Dist.), 402 Ill.App.3d 62

Plaintiffs, Ami Moore and Doggie Do Right-911, Inc., aver that defendants PETA, Diane Opresnik, John Keene, and Mary DePaolo defamed them and placed them in a false light by stating that the plaintiff dog trainer placed a shock device on a dog's genitals and allegedly shocked it. Prior to this action, the claim against PETA was settled and dismissed. The defamation claims against Opresnik, Keene, and DePaolo, persisted. In dismissing the remaining claims, the court found that there was no positive factual statement of criminal animal cruelty to support a defamation per se claim. Further, another claim fell outside the statute of limitations period and was also inadequately supported by specific allegations.

Case
ZooCats, Inc. v. U.S. Dept. of Agriculture 417 Fed.Appx. 378(5th Cir. 2011) This petition followed a final order of the Secretary of the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) ordering ZooCats, Inc. to cease and desist from violating the Animal Welfare Act (AWA), and revoking ZooCats's animal exhibitor license. ZooCats argued on appeal that the Secretary erred in extending certain filing deadlines, erred in determining certain audio tapes were inadmissible evidence, and erred in determining that ZooCats did not qualify as a “research facility” under the AWA. Addressing each of these claims, the 5th Circuit held that the Administrative Law Judge had broad discretion to manage its docket to promote judicial economy, efficiency, and to protect the interests of the parties. The Sixth Circuit further found that even if the tapes were admissible, failure to admit the tapes would be a harmless error because there was substantial evidence in the record supporting the agency's determination that ZooCats wilfully violated the AWA. Finally, the 6th Circuit held ZooCats was not a research facility under the AWA because it had not researched, tested, or experimented in the almost ten years since it registered as a research facility. The 6th Circuit therefore denied Petitioner’s petition. Case
IL - Pet Shops - Chapter 225. Professions and Occupations. 225 I.L.C.S. 605/1 - 22 IL ST CH 225 § 605/1 - 22

This section comprises Illinois' Animal Welfare Act.  The Act is primarily aimed at regulating commercial pet dealers, such as kennels, breeders, and retail pet shops.  The provisions include restrictions on the age at which both dogs and cats can be separated from their mothers (8 weeks).

Statute
CA - Rabies - Chapter 1. Rabies Control. West's Ann. Cal. Health & Safety Code § 121575 - 121710 CA HLTH & S § 121575 - § 121710

This chapter of California laws deals with rabies control.

Statute
Humane Soc. of the U.S. v. Hodel 840 F.2d 45 (C.A.D.C.,1988) 268 U.S.App.D.C. 165, 18 Envtl. L. Rep. 20,636 (C.A.D.C.,1988)

In this appeal, the Humane Society of the United States (HSUS) challenged a series of actions by the Fish and Wildlife Service to allow hunting on some of America's national wildlife refuges. The District Court held that HSUS failed to satisfy the Supreme Court's requirements for associational standing because the 'recreational' interest of Society members was not germane to the group's self-described mission of insuring the humane treatment of animals and other wildlife. The Court of Appeals reversed the district court's finding that the Humane Society had no standing to challenge the hunt openings, and remanded the action to allow HSUS to pursue its challenge to the introduction of hunting. This Court did affirm the district court's finding on the merits that the Wildlife Service complied with NEPA when it permitted hunting at the Chincoteague preserve. Affirmed in part and reversed in part.

Case
CITES Conf. 9.24

This is the attempt by the Party States under CITES to define just what "endangered" might mean for different types of plants and animals.

Treaty

Pages