Results
| Title | Citation | Alternate Citation | Agency Citation | Summary | Type |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| NO - Aquaculture - Regulation pertaining to Establishing and Expanding Aquaculture Establishments, Pet Shops, etc. | § 1 - 13, Regulation pertaining to Establishing and Expanding Aquaculture Establishments, Pet Shops, etc. |
The purpose of this regulation is to promote good aquatic animal health and ensure good fish and decapod welfare. |
Statute | ||
| Brown v. Muhlenberg Tp. | 269 F.3d 205 (3rd Cir. 2001) |
Pet owners were unreasonably deprived of their Fourth Amendment rights to their pet by police officer. Pennsylvania Court would recognize a claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress based upon the killing of a pet. |
Case | ||
| Allanson v. Toncich | 2002 WL 1897936 (Austrailia) | 2002 WASCA 216 |
Appeal uphold the judgement against the dog owner for damages, but recalculates damages upward. |
Case | |
| Nahrstedt v. Lakeside Village Condominium Assoc. |
Neighborhood Association had covenants against pets. Woman had two cats (against rules) and was charge large fines for having them. She challenged the validity of the rule, as well as the method of enforcement. |
Pleading | |||
| Nat'l Pork Producers Council v. Ross | 6 F.4th 1021 (9th Cir. 2021), aff'd, 598 U.S. 356, 143 S. Ct. 1142, 215 L. Ed. 2d 336 (2023) | This case concerns a challenge to Proposition 12, a measure passed by California voters in 2018 that bans the sale of whole pork meat (no matter where produced) from animals confined in a manner inconsistent with California standards. Proposition 12 amended sections 25990–25993 of the California Health and Safety Code to “prevent animal cruelty by phasing out extreme methods of farm animal confinement." The National Pork Producers Council and the American Farm Bureau Federation (collectively referred to as “the Council”) filed an action for declaratory and injunctive relief on the ground that Proposition 12 violates the dormant Commerce Clause. The court noted that under its precedent, a state law violates the dormant Commerce Clause only in narrow circumstances. Here, the Council argues that Proposition 12 places an undue burden on interstate commerce and that Proposition 12 has an impermissible extraterritorial effect. The court disagreed, finding that Proposition 12 does not function as a price-control nor price-affirmation statute, as it neither dictates the price of for pork products nor does it tie the price of pork products sold in California to out-of-state prices. The Council also suggests that the law effectively violates the dormant Commerce Clause because of the interconnected nature of the pork industry. Pork producers would either have to produce all pork according to California standards or segregate California pork production to comply with the enhanced welfare standards. Again, the court found the argument unpersuasive based on precedent because a a state law is not impermissibly extraterritorial unless it directly regulates conduct that is wholly out of state. The "upstream" effects of Proposition 12 apply to both California and out-of-state entities equally, and a state is entitled to regulate commerce within its state. Finally, the court dismissed the argument that the dormant commerce clause is violated because it create inconsistent regulations where there is a need for "national uniformity in regulation." The court was unpersuaded that pork production rises to the level of need like taxation or interstate travel. The court held that the complaint here does not plausibly allege that such narrow circumstances apply to Proposition 12; thus, the court ruled that the district court did not err in dismissing the Council's complaint for failure to state a claim. | Case | ||
| Queensland - Food Production - Agricultural Regulations | This Regulation implements the Agricultural Standards Act 1994 by providing specifications on the composition and labeling of fertilizers, the labeling and prohibited materials in seeds, labeling and other requirements for stock food,and on general labeling requirements in agriculture. | Statute | |||
| Clyncke v. Waneka | 157 P.3d 1072 (Colo. 2007) | 2007 WL 570412 (Colo.) |
In this Colorado case, an inexperienced horse rider who was injured in fall from horse during a horse roundup, brought an action under the Colorado Equine Activities Statute against the owners of riding stable. The lower court, after a jury trial, entered a judgment for the stable owners. On appeal at the Supreme Court, the Court found that the Equine Statute places a two-pronged duty on sponsors; a sponsor is liable when he or she fails to make reasonable efforts to determine either a participant's ability to engage in the equine activity or a participant's ability to manage a particular horse. Here, a new trial was in order because the result may have been different if court had properly instructed the jury regarding the exception from civil liability for the sponsor. |
Case | |
| Tennessee Code: Article V: Cruelty to Animals | Tenn. Code Ann. §§ 1668-1672 (1858) | Tennessee's laws concerning cruelty to animals from 1858. The laws cover what qualifies as cruelty to animals to the punishment to be given a slave that is cruel to animals. | Statute | ||
| CT - Oxford - Title IX: General Regulations (Chapter 92: Right to Farm) | Code of Oxford §§ 92.01 - 92.06 |
According to Oxford, Connecticut's Right to Farm ordinances, quoting Conn. Gen. Stat. § 19a-341, an agricultural or farming operation shall not be deemed a public or private nuisance due to odor emanating from livestock or manure, or due to water pollution caused by livestock. Under these ordinances, a landowner or agent who fails to disclose that a buyer or tenant is about to acquire or occupy property in a town where farming activities occur shall be fined $100. These ordinances also contain exceptions to the nuisance provision, as well as provide a resolution process for any person who seeks to complain about a farm’s operations.
|
Local Ordinance | ||
| OK - Breeders - Commercial Pet Breeder Operations Guidelines | OK ADC 532:15-1-1 - 532:15-7-6 | OAC 532:15-1-1 - 532:15-7-6 | These regulations describe standards for pet breeders including sufficient food and water, regular exercise, veterinary care, adequate grooming, natural or artificial light during daylight hours, adequate space in living quarters, protection from the elements and extreme temperatures, and adequate resting time between breeding cycles, that ensures the general health and well-being of all pets the commercial pet breeder owns.“Commercial pet breeder” means any person that possesses or has possessed at any time in the last twelve months eleven or more adult intact female animals for use in breeding or dealing in animals for direct or indirect sale or for exchange in return for consideration. Household pets kept by breeders which the breeder has registered with the Board as not being used in breeding or dealing shall not be counted under this definition. Mandated record-keeping is outlined in Subchapter 7, which includes a required pet health history provided to purchasers. | Administrative |