Results
| Title | Citation | Alternate Citation | Summary | Type |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| US - Poultry Products Inspection Act (PPIA) | 21 U.S.C.A. § 451 - 473 | PPIA regulates the processing and distribution of poultry products. To ensure that poultry is fit for human consumption, it forbids the buying, selling, transporting and importing of dead, dying, disabled, or diseased poultry and products made from poultry that died other than by slaughter. PPIA requires certain sanitary, labeling and container standards to prevent the sale of adulterated or misbranded poultry products. Violations may result in a fine and/or imprisoned. | Statute | |
| AR - Assistance Animal - Arkansas Assistance Animal/Guide Dog Laws | A.C.A. § 20-14-301 to 311; A.C.A. § 23-13-717; A.C.A. § 20-14-1001 - 1004 | AR ST § 20-14-301 to 311; AR ST § 23-13-717; AR ST § 20-14-1001 - 1004 | The following statute comprises the state's relevant assistance animal and guide dog law. | Statute |
| Seiber v. U.S. | 364 F.3rd 1356, 34 Envtl L. Rep. 20,026 | 58 ERC 1246 |
Owners of commercial timberland designated as northern spotted owl nesting habitat brought suit against the United States, alleging that the land was temporarily taken when the Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) denied their application to cut timber on the property which had been considered critical habitat for the endangered species. The appeals court upheld the lower court and held that no adequate claim for a "takings" was made. |
Case |
| Vendrella v. Astriab Family Ltd. Partnership | 36 A.3d 707 (Conn.App.,2012) | 133 Conn.App. 630 |
Minor sued farmer horse-owner for negligence after farmer's horse bit him. The Appellate Court reversed summary judgment, holding that a fact issue remained as to whether the farmer had notice that the horse belonged to a class of domestic animals that possessed a natural propensity to bite. Such knowledge may make certain injuries foreseeable, giving rise to a duty to use reasonable care to restrain the animal to prevent injury. |
Case |
| ABC- Test | DFthysyhkfhkjdgh | Policy | ||
| CA - Food Production - Chapter 13.4. Force Fed Birds | West's Ann. Cal. Health & Safety Code § 25980 - 25984 | CA HLTH & S § 25980 - 25984 | This chapter concerns force fed birds (usually ducks or geese), employed in the process of making foie gras. Beginning July 1, 2012, California outlaws the sale of any product in the state that is the result of force feeding a bird for the purpose of enlarging the bird's liver beyond normal size. A peace or humane society officer may issue a citation for a civil penalty up to $1,000 for each violation, and up to $1,000 for each day the violation continues. | Statute |
| EU - Seals - Regulation (EC) No 1007/2009 on trade in seal products. | Regulation (EC) No 1007/2009 |
This regulation bans the trade of seal products on the Union market, harmonising national legislation in this area. |
Statute | |
| Alliance for Wild Rockies v. Lyder | 728 F.Supp.2d 1126 (D.Mont., 2010) | 2010 WL 3023652 (D.Mont.) |
Plaintiffs challenge the USFWS' 2009 designation of approximately 39,000 sq. miles of critical habitat for the United States distinct population segment of the Canada lynx. Specifically, they contend that the Service: (1) arbitrarily failed to designate occupied critical habitat in certain national forests in Montana and Idaho, as well as in Colorado entirely; (2) arbitrarily failed to designate any unoccupied critical habitat whatsoever; and (3) failed to base its decision on the "best scientific data available." The court concluded that the FWS arbitrarily excluded areas occupied by lynx in Idaho and Montana and failed to properly determine whether areas occupied by the lynx in Colorado possess the attributes essential to the conservation of the species. |
Case |
| Earth Island Institute v. Brown | 865 F. Supp. 1364 (1994) |
Plaintiffs sought to prevent the Secretary of Commerce from allowing the American Tunaboat Association ("ATA") to continue killing northeastern offshore spotted dolphins that had been listed as depleted. Defendants argued that such killings were permissible under the ATA's permit, and that the MMPA provisions relied on by the plaintiffs were irrelevant to the dispute. The court concluded that Congress did not intend to allow the continued taking of dolphin species or stock, once the Secretary had determined that their population level was depleted. |
Case | |
| CO - Circus - § 33-1-126. Prohibiting certain animals in a traveling animal act--short title--definitions | C. R. S. A. § 33-1-126 | The Traveling Animal Protection Act, effective in 2021, bans the use of several listed animals in performances and traveling animal acts. Among other listed families include members of the wild felidae (cat) family, marsupial family, nonhuman primate family, elephant family, and seal family. This law does not prohibit exhibition at a wildlife sanctuary, AZA accredited institution, certain environmental education programs, livestock exhibition including rodeos, use in films,and university usage done in compliance with the AWA. | Statute |