Results
| Title | Citation | Alternate Citation | Agency Citation | Summary | Type | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| American Soc. for Prevention of Cruelty to Animals v. Feld Entertainment, Inc. | 677 F.Supp.2d 55, 2009 WL 5159752 (D.D.C., 2009) |
This opinion represents the nine-year culmination of litigation brought by plaintiff Tom Rider and Animal Protection Institute (API) against Defendant Feld Entertainment, Inc. (“FEI”) - the operator of Ringling Bros. and Barnum & Bailey traveling circus. Plaintiffs alleged that defendant's use of bullhooks and prolonged periods of chaining with respect to its circus elephants violates the Endangered Species Act, 16 U.S.C. § 1531, et seq. This Court held that plaintiffs failed to establish standing under Article III of the United States Constitution and entered judgment in favor of defendants. Since the Court concluded that plaintiffs lack standing, it did not reach the merits of plaintiffs' allegations that FEI “takes” its elephants in violation of Section 9 of the ESA. |
Case | |||||||||
| Derecho Animal Volume 11 Núm 2 |
|
Policy | ||||||||||
| 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 | ||||||||
| MO - Florissant - Breed - SECTION 205.395: REGULATION OF PIT BULL DOGS | FLORISSANT, MO. MUNICIPAL CODE § 205.395 (2010) | In Florissant, Missouri, it is unlawful to keep, harbor, own, or possess any pit bull, except pit bulls licensed on the effective date are allowed. Such dogs are subject to certain requirements, such as owners taking identifying photographs, keeping the dog properly confined and/or secured, posting a "Beware of Dog--Pit Bull" sign, keeping $100,000 liability insurance, and sterilizing the dog. A violation may result in seizure and impoundment of the dog. | Local Ordinance | |||||||||
| Hendricks v. Barlow | 656 N.E.2d 481 (Ind. 1995) | 656 N.E.2d 481 (Ind. 1995) |
Landowners were held in violation of a zoning regulation, established under a Hendricks County ordinance, which forbade having wild animals residing on residential property. The trial court held that the county could not pass such a law, since it would be preempted by state and federal law. However, on appeal, this Court found that federal (the AWA) and state law did not preempt the County from passing such ordinances. The trial court erroneously attempted to interpret the law when it was not ambiguous, and, thus, preemption by state and federal law should not have been found. Thus, the zoning regulation was permitted. |
Case | ||||||||
| PETA v. Tri-State Zoological Park | 424 F. Supp. 3d 404 (D. Md. 2019), aff'd, 843 F. App'x 493 (4th Cir. 2021) | PETA brought this action against defendants Tri-State Zoological Park of Western Maryland, Inc., Animal Park, Care & Rescue, Inc., and Robert Candy (collectively, “Tri-State”). Prior to this lawsuit, Tri-State was home to two lemurs, five tigers, and two lions which are all protected under the Endangered Species Act (“ESA”). More than half of the protected species housed at Tri-State died. PETA alleged violations of the ESA. PETA contended that the animals were subjected to harm and harassment and that Tri-State committed a “take” as defined by the ESA as a result of unsanitary living conditions, poor diets, and inadequate shelter and enrichment. The district court found that PETA had standing to bring suit. The court also found that each of the respective animals had been subjected to a take under the ESA. The court ultimately held that it would enter a separate order declaring that the Defendants violated the ESA by unlawfully taking the remaining big cats and maintaining possession of them. The Court permanently enjoined the Defendants from ever owning or possessing any endangered or threatened species and terminated the Defendants’ ownership and possessory rights to the animals. The Defendants’ motion to stay was denied. | Case | |||||||||
| OH - Restaurant - 3717.14 Dogs in outdoor dining area of retail food establishment or food service operation | R.C. § 3717.14 | OH ST § 3717.14 | This Ohio law, enacted in 2018, allows a retail food establishment or food service operation to allow patrons to bring dogs to outdoor dining area of the establishment or operation in accordance with this section. The establishment who allows dogs must do the following: (1) adopt a policy that requires patrons to control their dog, whether with a leash or otherwise, while the dog is in the outdoor dining area; (2) not allow the person to take the dog into the outdoor dining area through any of the establishment's or operation's indoor areas; and (3) comply with sanitation and other standards of Ohio codes. Dogs brought to outdoor dining areas must be properly vaccinated in accordance with state and local laws. | Statute | ||||||||
| US - Poultry - Petition to issue regulations under the Poultry Products Inspection Act to regulate practices and actions that result in adulterated poultry products | Submitted by Farm Sanctuary and Animal Welfare Institute (AWI) | The United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) has been directed by Congress to promulgate regulations that will reduce poultry carcass adulteration. However, although USDA has repeatedly recognized that the inhumane treatment of poultry leads to adulteration, it has not promulgated any regulations to limit that adulteration. Thus, USDA is not fulfilling its mandate. Farm Sanctuary and the Animal Welfare Institute submit this petition for rulemaking, calling on USDA to begin the process of promulgating regulations to address bird handling and slaughter practices that result in adulteration as is its duty under the Poultry Products Inspection Act (PPIA), 21 U.S.C. § 451 et seq. Read 9 C.F.R. 381, 9 C.F.R. 416, and 9 C.F.R. 500 --all of which are discussed in the petition. | Administrative | |||||||||
| Dunham v. Kootenai County | 690 F.Supp.2d 1162 (D.Idaho, 2010) | 2010 WL 556803 (D.Idaho) |
This matter involves the Defendant Kootenai County's motion for summary judgment this federal civil rights case filed by Dunham. The facts underlying the case stem from 2008, when county animal control officers went to Dunham's residence to investigate complaints of possible animal cruelty. During their investigation, Defendants entered Dunham's property to ascertain the condition of the horses residing there in a round-pen. Despite the conditions of the horses which necessitated their removal and relocation to an equine rescue facility, Dunham was ultimately charged and found not guilty of charges of animal cruelty. Dunham claims that Defendants violated her Fourth Amendment rights when they searched her property and seized her horses without a warrant. Defendants counter that the search was constitutional based on the open fields doctrine, and that the seizure was constitutional based on the plain view doctrine. Based on the open fields doctrine, the Court concluded that Dunham did not have an expectation of privacy in the searched area. |
Case | ||||||||
| Houseman v. Dare | 966 A.2d 24 (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 2009) | 405 N.J.Super. 538 (2009) |
An engaged, live-in couple purchased a dog together and listed both of their names on the American Kennel Club registration. While speaking to his girlfriend about ending the relationship, the boyfriend promised her that she could keep the dog, but failed to fulfill that promise; the court required specific enforcement of that promise. In addition, the court found that dogs possess special subjective value similar to "heirlooms, family treasures, and works of art." |
Case |