Results
| Title | Citation | Alternate Citation | Summary | Type |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Animal Legal Defense Fund; Animal Welfare Institute; Valerie Buchanan; Jane Garrison; Nancy Megna, plaintiffs-appellants v. Ann | In this federal action, plaintiffs (ALDF, the AWI, and three individuals) challenged the USDA's decision not to adopt a Draft Policy that would have provided guidance to zoos, research facilities, and other regulated entities in how to ensure the psychological well-being of on-human primates in order to comply with the Animal Welfare Act. While the district court found that the USDA's decision did not constitute a reviewable final agency decision, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals found that the lower court did indeed have authority under the Administrative Procedures Act to review the agency's decision not to create a policy. On June 4, 2007, the Court vacated the previous opinion and dismissed the appeal with prejudice. Two judges wrote separate opinions, concurring and dissenting in part. | Pleading | ||
| Brookover v. Roberts Enterprises, Inc. | 156 P.3d 1157 (Ariz.App. Div. 1,2007) | 215 Ariz. 52 (2007) |
Plaintiffs-appellants Brookovers appeal the trial court's decision granting summary judgment to defendant-appellee Roberts Enterprises, Inc.. The Brookovers claimed that Roberts was negligent in allowing its cow to enter the highway where it collided with the Brookovers' automobile. They contend that they presented evidence that defendants were aware of the risk of significant numbers of collisions between cattle and automobiles when cows were allowed to graze in the vicinity of a paved highway. Here, however, the court stated that the record indicates that the accident involving the Brookovers was the first reported cattle-automobile accident to occur on the Salome Highway through the Clem Allotment since Roberts began to lease the premises. Further, the court affirmed the trial court's ruling on the inapplicability of res ipsa loquitur based on the Brookovers' inability to establish that the accident is of a type that would not have occurred in the absence of negligence. |
Case |
| MD - Courthouse dog - § 9-501. Court Dog Program | MD Code, Courts and Judicial Proceedings, § 9-501 | This statute, enacted in 2020, creates a Court Dog Program for Maryland for participating counties. The program functions in a circuit court that participates in the Program and provides a facility dog or therapy dog to a child witness in the circuit court proceeding or other related court process, meeting, or interview in the State. It also operates in a circuit court or District Court that offers a veterans treatment court program where it provides a facility dog or therapy dog to a veteran participating in a veterans treatment court proceeding or other related court process or meeting in the State. | Statute | |
| UT - Cats - Chapter 46. Animal Welfare Act. Part 3. Community Cat Act | U.C.A. 1953 § 11-46-301 to 304 | UT ST § 11-46-301 to 304 | A shelter may release a cat prior to the 5-day holding period to a sponsor operating a community cat program. Such a cat is exempt from licensing requirements and feeding bans. Community cat sponsors or caretakers do not have custody of any cat, and sterilization and vaccination records must be kept for three years. | Statute |
| AU - Domestic Animals Act 2000 (ACT) | Domestic Animals Act 2000 |
The Domestic Animals Act 2000 is a piece of legislation in the Australian Capital Territory of relevance to domestic animals. The Act encourages responsible pet ownership and outlines the obligations of pet owners to their animals and to the community. It also provides for the identification and registration of certain animals. |
Statute | |
| ID - Payette County - Breed - Pit Bull Ordinance | PAYETTE COUNTY, ID., COUNTY CODE § 5-5-11 (2007) |
It is unlawful for any person to own, possess, keep, exercise control over, maintain, harbor, transport, buy or sell a pit bull within Payette County, Idaho, with exceptions for police, humane societies, and dogs registered prior to the date of enactment. Owners of such dogs must provide proof of rabies vaccination, sterilization, keep $1 million liability insurance, have a a microchip ID chip implanted in the dog, and pay an annual pit bull license fee. The dog must also be kept confined with a “Pit Bull Dog” sign posted on the premises. Dogs whose owners are not in compliance are subject to impoundment and destruction. Additionally, a pit bull exempt from the ban is subsumed to be a dangerous dog. |
Local Ordinance | |
| United States v. Bramble | 103 F.3d 1475 (9th Cir. 1996) |
During a search related to a controlled substances violation, undercover agents seized eagle feathers from defendant. The court held that Congress exercised valid Commerce Clause power in enacting the BGEPA, as the incentive of interstate commerce in eagle parts would threaten eagles to extinction, thus depleting the future commercial potential of activities such as eagle-based tourism and educational research. For discussion on the Eagle Act and the Commerce Clause, see Detailed Discussion . |
Case | |
| CA - Declaw, debark - § 1942.7. Conditions on occupancy based on declawing or devocalizing animals | West's Ann.Cal.Civ.Code § 1942.7 | CA CIVIL § 1942.7 | This California law prohibits any owner or property manager from advertising a requirement, refusing occupancy of, or otherwise requiring a prospective tenant to declaw or devocalize any animal allowed on the premises. A city attorney, district attorney, or other law enforcement prosecutorial entity has standing to enforce this section and may sue for declaratory relief or injunctive relief for a violation of this section. Violation results in a civil penalty of not more than $1,000. | Statute |
| WV - Domestic Violence - § 48-27-503. Permissive provisions in protective order. | W. Va. Code, §§ 48-27-503; 48-27-702 | WV ST §§ 48-27-503; 48-27-702 | In West Virginia, the terms of a protective order may include awarding the petitioner the exclusive care, possession, or control of any animal owned, possessed, leased, kept or held by either the petitioner or the respondent or a minor child residing in the residence or household of either the petitioner or the respondent and prohibiting the respondent from taking, concealing, molesting, physically injuring, killing or otherwise disposing of the animal and limiting or precluding contact by the respondent with the animal. Furthermore, West Virginia mandates that law enforcement officers who suspect animal cruelty during an alleged incident of domestic violence must report that suspicion and the grounds therefor to the county humane officer within twenty-four hours of the response to the alleged incident of domestic violence. | Statute |
| SC - Ecoterrorism - Chapter 21. Farm Animal and Research Facilities Protection Act. | Code 1976 § 47-21-10 to 90 | SC ST § 47-21-10 to 90 | The set of law comprises South Carolina's Farm Animal and Research Facilities Protection Act. A person commits an offense if, without the effective consent of the owner, the person exercises control over an animal facility or the property located there, or if that person damages the facility or its property. A person also commits an offense if he or she enters a facility without the effective consent of the owner and remains concealed with the intent to disrupt or damage the enterprise conducted at the animal facility. Violation for disruption or damage to a facility or its property is a misdemeanor with a fine of up to $10,000 and/or 3 years imprisonment. Violation for illegal entry is a misdemeanor with a fine up to $5,000 and/or 1 year imprisonment. | Statute |