Results
| Title | Citation | Alternate Citation | Agency Citation | Summary | Type |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jippes v. van Landbouw | Case C-189/01(ECJ) |
Jippes, an ECJ case from 2001, involved a legal dispute over the hoof and mouth pandemic ravaging Europe at the time. To stem spread of the disease, the EU passed a community directive banning the use of preventative vaccinations and mandating compulsory slaughter. The plaintiff—or “applicant,” as plaintiffs are referred to in Europe—owned a variety of farm animals, and, loathe to kill them, argued that European law embraced a general principle that animals were shielded from physical pain and suffering. Such a principle, the applicant argued, could only be overridden when absolutely necessary; and the compulsory slaughter directive was in direct conflict with this principle. The ECJ, however, rejected the applicant’s argument, holding that the Animal Welfare Protocol of 1997 did not delineate any new important animal-friendly principles in European law, but merely codified old ones. |
Case | ||
| Ley de Protección Animal del Estado de Querétaro | Ley de Protección Animal del Estado de Querétaro | This law seeks to guarantee dignified and respectful treatment for all animal species. As stated in Article 1, its primary objectives include: 1) the regulation of the possession, procreation, development, use, transportation, and slaughter of species, populations, and animal specimens in the state; 2) to implement compliance with the state's environmental policy regarding wildlife and biotic resources; and 3) to promote a culture of protection and respect for nature. | Statute | ||
| Park v. Moorman Mfg. Co. | 241 P.2d 914 (Utah,1952) | 121 Utah 339 (1952) |
Plaintiffs sued defendant corporation for breach of warranty as to fitness of purpose of poultry feed concentrate after egg production dropped, hens became malnourished, and an unusual amount of picking and cannibalism developed. As to the issue of damages, the Supreme Court held instruction that plaintiff was entitled to damages in amount of market value of chickens destroyed and that provided formula by which market value of suitable replacements could be determined was correct. |
Case | |
| Revista Brasileira de Direito Animal Volume 19 |
SUMÁRIOEDITORIALHeron Gordilho……………………………………………… |
Policy | |||
| ID - Endangered Species - Chapter 24. Species Conservation- Chapter 26. Fish and Game | I.C. § 36-2401 - 2405, 36–1101 | ID ST § 36-2401 - 2405, § 36–1101 | This Idaho law sets out the definitions related to state endangered species laws. It also establishes a delisting advisory team that is responsible for reviewing data related to state species proposed for delisting by the federal government. This team also submits management plans to the state fish and wildlife department. | Statute | |
| KS - Ulysses - Breed - ARTICLE 3. PIT BULL DOGS | ULYSSES, KS., CITY CODE §§ 2-301 - 2-302 |
In Ulysses, it is unlawful to keep, harbor, own or possess any pit bull dog, with exceptions. Pit bull dogs registered with the city as of July 19, 1989 may be kept subject to certain requirements, such as use of a leash and muzzle if outside, confinement, “Beware of Dog” signs, $50,000 insurance, and identification photographs. It is prohibited to sell or give a pit bull away except in limited circumstances. All pit bull puppies born in the city must be removed within six weeks of birth. Failure to comply may result in seizure of the dog, a fine of $200 to $1,000, and imprisonment up to 30 days.
|
Local Ordinance | ||
| CA - Euthanasia - § 597u. Animals; prohibited killing methods | West's Ann. Cal. Penal Code § 597u | CA PENAL § 597u | This statute prohibits the use by any person of carbon monoxide gas or an intracardiac injection of a euthanasia agent on a conscious animal to kill an animal. | Statute | |
| FL - Importation - Chapter 5C-3. Importation of Animals | Fla. Admin. Code r. 5C-3.001 - 3.015 | Rule 5C-3.001 to 3.015, F.A.C. | This set of regulations constitutes the Department of Agriculture & Consumer Services rules governing the importation of animals. | Administrative | |
| Bacon (Litigation Guardian of) v. Ryan | 1995 CarswellSask 540 | [1996] 3 W.W.R. 215, 27 C.C.L.T. (2d) 308, 138 Sask. R. 297 |
The child plaintiff was bitten on the face by a pitbull owned by the defendants, requiring reconstructive surgery and two days hospitalization and causing permanent scarring. The dog had bitten the owner's young son two weeks earlier while he played near the dog's food dish'; they contemplated having the dog euthanized but decided against it. The plaintiff's mother had heard about the bite incident but brought her daughter of the same age as the owner's son to visit, placing her on the floor where the dog bit her shortly after. The judge held that the defendants knew of the dog's propensity to bite young children but kept it ''at their peril" (suggesting strict liability or scienter, which was not however mentioned); such fault was sufficient to make the owners 2/3 liable for the child's $12,000 plastic surgery costs, pain and mental anguish. The plaintiff's mother was held 1/ contributorily liable for letting her child visit and play on the floor near the dog, knowing of its propensity. |
Case | |
| WA - Restaurant - 246-215-06570. Methods - Prohibiting animals (FDA Food Code 6-501.115) | WA ADC 246-215-06570 | WAC 246-215-06570 | This Washington regulation generally prohibits live animals on the premises of a food establishment. However, subsection (4) now allows dogs to be present in the outdoor area of such premises if certain conditions are met. These include the permit holder (the food establishment) possessing an approved plan allowing dogs in its outdoor premises. Dogs must be on a leash and under control of their handlers. Dogs must not go through the interior of the food establishment and must not go on tables, chairs, or other fixtures. If the food establishment provides containers for food or drink for the dogs, those containers must not be washed in the food establishment. Food employees must not have contact with the dogs and the area musts be maintained so that it is clean of animal waste. Adequate signage must notify patrons of the facility's decision to allow dogs. | Administrative |