|Title||Citation||Alternate Citation||Agency Citation||Summary||Type|
|KY - Restaurant, animals - 902 KAR 45:005. Kentucky food code||902 KY ADC 45:005||902 Ky. Admin. Regs. 45:005||This Kentucky regulation provides an exception for dogs in outdoor dining areas to the Kentucky food code. A dog may be allowed in the outdoor dining area if that area is not fully enclosed and there is a separate entrance to the outdoor dining area. Employees must prevent the dog from coming into contact with any food, dishes, utensils, linens, and other food service items. If the employee comes into contact with the patron dog, that employee must wash hands before returning to work. A sanitizing kit for dog messes must be made available in the area. Signage must be posted at entrances to the outdoor dining area explaining that dogs may be allowed, but they must are not allowed on seats or tables or must not be served from human food or water receptacles. Also, dogs must be kept on a leash and under control of an adult at all times. The food establishment may refuse to serve the patron with a dog if he or she fails to exercise reasonable control over the dog or the dog is behaving in a manner that comprises the health and safety of others.||Administrative|
|New Zealand - Animal Welfare - Code for Layer Hens 1999||Code of Animal Welfare No. 18||In New Zealand, hens are kept under conditions ranging from large commercial enterprises where the birds are totally reliant on humans for all their daily requirements to free-ranging hens which have access to outdoor runs or pasture. Provided those concerned with the day-to-day care of the hens treat them with skill and consideration, their welfare can be safeguarded under a variety of management systems. The code takes account of five basic requirements: freedom from thirst, hunger and malnutrition, the provision of appropriate comfort and shelter, the prevention, or rapid diagnosis and treatment, of injury, disease or infection, freedom from distress, and the ability to display normal patterns of behavior.||Statute|
|New Hampshire Revised Statutes 1843: Offences Against Chastity, Decency and Morality||N.H. Rev. Stat. ch. 219 § 12 (1843)||Section 12 of Chapter 219 from New Hampshire Revised Statutes of 1843 covers cruelty to animals. Specifically, the statutes states what qualifies as cruelty to animals and the punishment for it.||Statute|
|AL - Mobile - Chapter 7: Animal and Fowl (Article VI - Horse Drawn Carriages)||Mobile, Alabama, Code of Ordinances §§ 7-131 to 7-191.||
In Mobile, Alabama, animal-drawn passenger vehicles are restricted to horse drawn carriages. The following ordinances provide the restrictions and requirements placed upon the operations of these carriages within the city.
|United States of America v. Hale||113 Fed.Appx. 108||2004 WL 2367994||
A couple owned and operated a caviar business. They were convicted of violating the Lacey Act by purchasing and selling paddlefish eggs during the closed season, falsifying records and operating a fish dealership without a license. The Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction. This Judgment was Vacated by Hale v. U.S ., 125 S.Ct. 2914 (2005).
|State v. Marcellino||--- N.E.3d ----, 2019 WL 6311765, 2019 -Ohio- 4837 (2019).||2019 -Ohio- 4837 (2019)||Bianca Marcellino was charged and convicted of two counts of cruelty to animals after a search of her residence revealed two horses that were in need of emergency medical aid. Marcellino was ordered to pay restitution and she subsequently appealed. Marcellino argued that the trial court abused its discretion by denying the motion for a Franks hearing where there were affidavits demonstrating material false statements in the affidavit for the search warrant. The Court contended that the trial court did not err in failing to hold a Franks hearing because even if the Court sets aside the alleged false statements in the affidavit, there remained an overwhelming amount of sufficient statements to support a finding of probable cause. The Court also held that trial courts have the authority to order restitution only to the actual victims of an offense or survivors of the victim, therefore, the award of restitution to the humane society was not valid because humane societies are a governmental entity and cannot be victims of abuse. The Court ultimately affirmed the judgment of the municipal court and reversed and vacated the order of restitution.||Case|
|RI - Shark - § 20-1-29. Trade in shark fins||Gen.Laws 1956, § 20-1-29||RI ST § 20-1-29||This Rhode Island law, effective in 2017, prohibits the possession, sale, offering for sale, trading, or distribution of shark fin. “Shark fin” means the raw, dried, or otherwise processed detached fin or the raw, dried, or otherwise processed detached tail of a shark. Even if a person holds a license to take sharks, he or she must immediately destroy any shark fin separated from the shark unless used by the person for the purposes of taxidermy and subsequent display. Violation incurs a fine or not less than $500 nor more than $1,000 imprisonment of up to 90 days, or both.||Statute|
|AL - Disaster Planning - Emergency Support Function (ESF) # 16 Veterinarian Services and Animal Care||Alabama Emergency Operations Plan (2012)||Alabama's Emergency Management Agency coordinates the Emergency Operations Plan, which contains Emergency Support Function (ESF) #11 on Agriculture and Natural Resources. According to that ESF, "[t]he primary purpose of this ESF is to identify animal and agriculture needs in the aftermath of a disaster or emergency. This includes coordinating industry responses to emergencies and providing subject matter experts in all areas of agriculture. Providing necessary leadership and resources for sheltering of animals during times of disasters is another primary responsibility of this ESF, to include coordination with industry stakeholders and organizations that can provide support."||Administrative|
|WA - Fish - 77.15.250. Unlawful release of fish, shellfish, or wildlife--Penalty--Unlawful release of deleterious exotic wildlif||West's RCWA 77.15.250||WA ST 77.15.250||Under this Washington statute, a person is guilty of unlawfully releasing, planting, possessing, or placing fish, shellfish, or wildlife (gross misdemeanor) if the person knowingly releases such animals within the state, and the animals have not been classified as deleterious wildlife. A person is guilty of unlawfully releasing, planting, possessing, or placing deleterious exotic wildlife (class C felony) if the person knowingly releases animals classified as deleterious.||Statute|
|American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals et al v. Ringling Brothers, et al,||
This case involves the Ringling Brothers circus company’s mistreatment of elephants brought by the ASPCA. Plaintiffs alleged that the alleged routine beating, chaining, and other mistreatment amounted to an unlawful taking of an endangered species under the Endangered Species Act (ESA). Judge rejects defendants’ motion to dismiss and order the case to proceed.