Results
| Title | Citation | Alternate Citation | Agency Citation | Summary | Type |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| South Africa - Endangered Species - List of Endangered Species | This is the published list of all the critically endangered, endangered, vulnerable and protected species under South Africa's National Environmental Management: Biodiversity Act, 2004 (Act No. 10 of 2004). | Statute | |||
| Sweden - Scientific Research - Swedish Animal Welfare Ordinance | SFS 1988:539 |
This is one of two main pieces of animal welfare legislation in Sweden. It has been edited to contain mostly material relating to animal research. |
Statute | ||
| William v. Orange County Animal Control |
This involves a case where owners challenge validity of euthanasia order for "dangerous" dog. "Boo," a bullmastiff (large breed of dog), knocked down a child who had walked into his (the dog's) yard. The child accused dog of biting him. The Orange County Animal Control Department ordered that Boo be euthanized as a "vicious" and "dangerous" animal. The owners filed a Writ of Mandamus to delay the killing of the dog until their challenge could be heard in court. |
Pleading | |||
| Kankey v. State | 2013 Ark. App. 68, Not Reported in S.W.3d (Ark.App.,2013) | 2013 WL 458000 (Ark.App.,2013) |
A district court found the appellant’s animals had been lawfully seized, and then divested appellant of ownership of the animals and vested custody to the American Society for Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (ASPCA). The appellant filed an appeal in the civil division of the circuit court, but the circuit court dismissed the appeal as untimely and not properly perfected. Upon another appeal, the Arkansas Court of Appeals found it had no jurisdiction and therefore dismissed the case. |
Case | |
| Journal of Animal and Natural Resource Law, Vol. 15 |
Published by the students of Michigan State University College of Law Journal of Animal & Natural Resource LawVol. |
Policy | |||
| US - Cruelty - § 11.446 Cruelty to animals. | 25 C.F.R. § 11.446 | This regulation concerns acts of animal cruelty on Indian reservations or under the jurisdiction of tribal courts. According to § 11.446, a person commits a misdemeanor if he or she purposely or recklessly subjects any animal in his or her custody to cruel neglect; subjects any animal to cruel mistreatment; kills or injures any animal belonging to another without legal privilege or consent of the owner; or causes one animal to fight with another. | Administrative | ||
| AU - Animal Welfare - Animal Welfare Act 2002 (WA) | Animal Welfare Act 2002 |
The purpose of the Act is to promote responsible animal care and protection, to provide standards for animal care and use, to protect animals from cruelty and to safeguard the welfare of animals used for scientific purposes. The Australian Code of Practice is incorporated into the legislation as the standard for animal care and use in scientific establishments. |
Statute | ||
| HI - Maui County - Title 22: Agricultural Parks (Chapter 22.04A: Kula Agricultural Park) | Maui County Code §§ 22.04A.010 - 22.04A.130 |
The purpose of these Maui County, Hawaii ordinances is to promote the development of diversified agriculture by providing appropriately-sized agricultural lots at reasonable rent and long-term tenure in the Kula Agricultural Park. In order to carry out this purpose, the ordinances contain provisions on how a bona fide farmer, a new farmer, or a displaced farmer may obtain such a lot. |
Local Ordinance | ||
| PEOPLE FOR THE ETHICAL TREATMENT OF ANIMALS, INC., Plaintiff, v. WILDLIFE IN NEED AND WILDLIFE IN DEED, INC. | 476 F. Supp. 3d 765 (S.D. Ind. 2020) | 2020 WL 4448481 (S.D. Ind. Aug. 3, 2020) | Wildlife in Need and Wildlife in Deed, Inc. ("WIN") is a zoo located in Charlestown, Indiana owned by Timothy Stark and Melissa Lane that houses exotic and endangered animals, including Big Cats like lions, tigers, and hybrids. WIN exhibits Big Cats to the public through hands-on encounters called “Tiger Baby Playtime” so Stark routinely declaws Big Cat cubs in his possession so he can handle them easier, not for any medical reason. Stark admitted to declawing "about a dozen cubs" in 2016 alone. People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, Inc. ("PETA") filed this lawsuit against Stark and Lane and their WIN zoo alleging that the defendants harassed and wounded Big Cats in violation of the federal Endangered Species Act (ESA). Specifically, this case asks whether certain animal exhibitors have "taken" various species of Big Cats by declawing them and prematurely separating them from their mothers to use in hands-on, public interactions. By granting PETA's motion for Partial Summary Judgment, this court concludes that such conduct constitutes a "taking" and thus violates the ESA. The court noted that PETA's motion for preliminary injunction was granted in 2017, restraining defendant from declawing any Big Cats absent a medical necessity supported by a veterinarian's opinion. Then, on February 12, 2018, the court preliminarily enjoined the WIN Defendants from declawing their Big Cats, prematurely separating Big Cat Cubs from their mothers, and using Cubs in Tiger Baby Playtime. The court previously concluded that declawing constitutes a “taking” under the ESA at the preliminary injunction stage, and now found "there is no good reason to disturb that conclusion." Thus, the court again concludes the WIN Defendants' declawing constitutes a “taking” under the ESA: it “harasses” Big Cats by creating a likelihood of significantly disrupting normal behavioral patterns; it “harms” Big Cats by actually injuring them; and it “wounds” Big Cats by inflicting a physical injury. In addition to granting the permanent injunction, the court also directed PETA to file a motion to appoint a special master and identify a reputable wildlife sanctuary for the animals housed at WIN. | Case | |
| Facility Dogs/Courthouse Support Dogs | As of 2024, twenty (20) states have laws that allow the use of facility/courthouse dogs in some legal proceedings. | State map |