Results
Displaying 6121 - 6130 of 6638
| Title | Citation | Alternate Citation | Agency Citation | Summary | Type |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| NV - Eggs - Chapter 583. Eggs. Cage-Free Eggs | N.R.S. 583.211 - 251 | Nev. Rev. Stat. Ann. §§ 583.211 - 251 (West) | This collection of laws are Nevada's cage-free egg provisions. Under these laws, Nevada egg producers must adopt cage-free housing systems for egg-laying hens. These housing systems must allow the hens a certain amount of usable space and the ability to do certain natural behaviors. Producers that do not comply with these provisions are subject to a civil penalty. | Statute | |
| Frye v. County of Butte | 221 Cal.App.4th 1051 (2013), 164 Cal.Rptr.3d 928 (2013) | 13 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 12, 929, 2013 Daily Journal D.A.R. 15, 539 |
After several administrative, trial court, and appeals hearings, the California court of appeals upheld a county’s decision to seize the plaintiffs’ horses for violation of Cal. Penal Code § 597.1(f). Notably, the appeals court failed to extend the law of the case, which generally provides that a prior appellate court ruling on the law governs further proceedings in the case, to prior trial court rulings. The appeals court also held that the trial court’s "Statement of Decision" resolved all issues set before it, despite certain remedies remaining unresolved and the court’s oversight of the plaintiffs' constitutionality complaint, and was therefore an appealable judgment. The appeals court also found the trial court lacked jurisdiction to extend the appeals deadline with its document titled "Judgment." |
Case | |
| Town of Bethlehem v. Acker | 102 A.3d 107 (Conn. App. 2014) | 153 Conn.App. 449 (2014) | Plaintiffs seized approximately 65 dogs from the Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals of Connecticut pursuant to a search and seizure warrant that had been issued on facts showing that the dogs, which were being kept in an uninsulated barn with an average temperature of 30 degrees Fahrenheit, were neglected, in violation of General Statutes § 22–329a. The trial court found that the smaller breed dogs were neglected, but found that larger breed dogs were not. On an appeal by plaintiffs and a cross appeal by defendants, the appeals court found: (1) the trial court applied the correct legal standards and properly determined that the smaller breed dogs were neglected and that the larger breed dogs were not neglected, even though all dogs were kept in a barn with an average temperature of 30 degrees Fahrenheit; (2) § 22–329a was not unconstitutionally vague because a person of ordinary intelligence would know that keeping smaller breed dogs in an uninsulated space with an interior temperature of approximately 30 degrees Fahrenheit would constitute neglect; (3) the trial court did not err in declining to admit the rebuttal testimony offered by the defendants; and (4) the trial court did not err in granting the plaintiffs' request for injunctive relief and properly transferred ownership of the smaller breed dogs to the town. The appellate court, however, reversed the judgment of the trial court only with respect to its dispositional order, which directed the parties to determine among themselves which dogs were smaller breed dogs and which dogs were larger breed dogs, and remanded the case for further proceedings, consistent with this opinion. | Case | |
| VT - Kennels - Rule 300. Animal Welfare Regulations | VT ADC 20 022 001 - 3.14 | Vt. Admin. Code 2-4-300:1.1 to 3.14 | These Vermont regulations for animal welfare set out the requirements kennels, pet stores and other animal facilities must follow in order to ensure the safe handling, care, treatment and transportation of animals is met. Precisely, the following regulations include: provisions regarding registration and licensing periods; government inspections; and specific instructions for the housing and care of cats and dogs. | Administrative | |
| CA - Mammals - § 4700. Taking or possession prohibited; scientific research; legal imports; | West's Ann. Cal. Fish & G. Code § 4700 | CA FISH & G § 4700 | This statute enumerates the fully protected mammals in the state of California. These animals may not be taken or possessed at any time. The statute also specifically states that permits or licenses to take these animals will not be issued, with a possible exception in the case of necessary scientific research. | Statute | |
| IN RE: CECIL BROWNING, DELORES BROWNING AND DARREN BROWNING, d/b/a ALLIGATORLAND SAFARI ZOO, INC. | 52 Agric. Dec. 129 (1993) | 1993 WL 18997 (U.S.D.A.) |
This is a disciplinary proceeding under the Animal Welfare Act, as amended (7 U.S.C. s 2131 et seq.), and the regulations and standards issued thereunder (9 C.F.R. s 1.1 et seq.). On November 20, 1992, Administrative Law Judge Edwin S. Bernstein (ALJ) issued an Initial Decision and Order assessing a civil penalty of $2,000, and suspending Respondents' license for 30 days, and thereafter until they are in full compliance with the Act, regulations and standards, because Respondents failed to keep their primary enclosures sanitary and in suitable condition, failed to maintain complete records, failed to keep food and watering receptacles clean, failed to handle wastes properly, failed to provide adequate veterinarian care, and failed to utilize sufficient personnel to maintain proper husbandry practices. (Respondents were licensed exhibitors of captive wildlife, including deer, non-human primates, and bears, among other animals.) The court also found the sanctions were not too severe, considering the willfullness of the violations. |
Case | |
| Humane Soc'y of the United States v. Nat'l Institutes of Health | Slip Copy, No. 21-CV-00121-LKG, 2022 WL 17619232 (D. Md. Dec. 13, 2022) | Plaintiff animal welfare advocates sued the National Institute of Health (NIH) for failing to transfer all chimpanzees housed at the Alamogordo Primate Facility to a retirement sanctuary known as “Chimp Haven." According to plaintiffs, transfer is required under the federal Chimpanzee Health Improvement, Maintenance and Protection Act (“CHIMP Act”), 42 U.S.C. § 283m, as well as the Administrative Procedure Act (APA). In 2015, NIH officially announced that it would cease biomedical research on chimpanzees and establish a working group to transfer all 288 surplus chimpanzees owned by NIH to Chimp Haven. In 2019, the NIH announced that not all chimpanzees would be transferred to Chimp Haven because 44 of those individuals were too frail for transfer due to medical conditions. After cross-motions for summary judgment, this court considers whether transfer is legally required. On appeal, Plaintiffs contend that the plain language of the CHIMP Act requires the transfer of all chimps and the court owes no deference to agency interpretation. In contrast, the Government argues that the decision is consistent with the CHIMP Act because the plain language of the act only requires that surplus chimpanzees offered by NIH be "accepted" into CHIMP Haven. The court found that the plain and unambiguous language, and use of the word "shall," in the CHIMP Act requires the NIH to transfer ALL chimpanzees to the federal sanctuary system. In addition, the legislative history of the CHIMP Act reinforces that reading of the statute. While the court recognized NIH's concern toward the frailest chimpanzees, the proper avenue is within the legislative branch. Notably, the court was unsure as to the proper remedy in this particular matter (e.g., whether a remand or vacatur is more appropriate). As a result, Plaintiffs' motion for partial summary judgment was granted and the Government's cross motion was denied as was the motion to dismiss. The court directed the parties to file a joint status report report with views on the relief Plaintiff seeks and how the matter should proceed in light of the instant opinion. | Case | ||
| South Africa - Biodiversity - National Environmental Management | No. 10 of 2004: National Environmental Management: Biodiversity Act, 2004. | The objectives of this Act are, within the framework of the National Environmental Management Act, to provide for the management and conservation of biological diversity within the Republic and of the components of such biological diversity; to provide for the use of indigenous biological resources in a sustainable manner; and to provide for the fair and equitable sharing among stakeholders of benefits arising from bioprosgecting involving indigenous biological resources. Other objecitves of this Act are to give effect to ratified international agreements relating to biodiversity which are binding on the Republic; to provide for co-operative governance in biodiversity management and conservation; and to provide for a South African National Biodiversity Institute to assist in achieving the objectives of this Act. | Statute | ||
| AK - Trusts - § 13.12.907. Honorary trusts; trusts for pets | AS § 13.12.907 | AK ST § 13.12.907 | This Alaska statute provides that trusts for the continuing care of designated domestic animals are valid, provided they are a duration of 21 years or less. The trust terminates when a living animal is no longer covered by the trust. Any remaining trust funds do not go to the trustee, but rather transfer by the order stipulated in the statute. | Statute | |
| Texas Beef Group v. Winfrey | 201 F.3d 680 (C.A.5 (Tex.),2000) | 45 Fed.R.Serv.3d 1370, 28 Media L. Rep. 1481 |
Cattle ranchers in Texas sued the
The Oprah Winfrey Show
and one of its guests for knowingly and falsely depicting American beef as unsafe in the wake of the British panic over “Mad Cow Disease.” The matter was removed from state court to federal court. The federal district court granted summary judgment as a matter of law on all claims presented except the business disparagement cause of action, which was eventually rejected by a jury. The court alternately held that no knowingly false statements were made by the appellees. This court affirmed on this latter ground only, finding that the guest's statement and the producers' editing of the show did not violate the Texas False Disparagement of Perishable Food Products Act.
|
Case |