Results
| Title | Citation | Alternate Citation | Summary | Type |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Weigel v. Maryland | 950 F.Supp.2d 811 (D.Md 2013) | 2013 WL 3157517 (D.Md 2013) |
Following the Tracey v. Solesky opinion, a nonprofit, nonstock cooperative housing corporation issued a rule that banned pit bulls on its premises. Members and leaseholders who owned dogs believed to be pit bulls sought a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction against the corporation and the state of Maryland in an amended complaint. Although the district court found the plaintiffs had adequately demonstrated standing and ripeness in their claims, the court also found that some of the leaseholders and members' charges were barred by 11th Amendment immunity and by absolute judicial immunity. Additionally, the district court found that the leaseholders and members' amended complaint failed to plead plausible void-for-vagueness, substantive due process and takings claims. The district court, therefore, granted the state's motion to dismiss and held all other motions pending before the court to be denied as moot. |
Case |
| CA - Poisoning - § 596. Poisoning animals; exceptions; posting warning signs | West's Ann. Cal. Penal Code § 596 | CA PENAL § 596 | This statute makes it a misdemeanor to poison an animal, but gives an exception to a property owner trying to control or destroy predatory animals or livestock-killing dogs on his/her property, if the owner displays specified warning signs. | Statute |
| Brazil - Crimes - Brazilian Environmental Crimes Law | Law 9, 605 (Feb 12, 1998) |
This law of Brazil seeks to protect wildlife and plants of the country, particularly endangered species. |
Statute | |
| NY - Research - § 399-aaaaa. Selling of animal tested cosmetics | McKinney's General Business Law § 399-aaaaa | NY GEN BUS § 399-aaaaa | This New York law from 2022 states that it shall be unlawful for a manufacturer to import for profit, sell or offer for sale in the state, any cosmetic which the manufacturer knew or reasonably should have known that animal testing was conducted or contracted by or on behalf of the manufacturer or any supplier of the manufacturer if the animal testing was conducted after the effective date of this section (January 2023). Exemptions include cosmetics where an ingredient testing method cannot be replaced, cosmetics from foreign jurisdictions where there is no evidence testing relied upon animal testing, and products tested on animals before the effective date of the law. | Statute |
| VT - Racing - § 2153. Prohibition on dog and horse race betting | 13 V.S.A. § 2153 | This Vermont law prohibits a person from holding, conducting, operating, or simulcasting a pari-mutuel dog race or pari-mutuel horse race for public exhibition. | Statute | |
| Animal Law Review Volume 9 |
Animal Law Volume 9 (2003)REMARKS |
Policy | ||
| AL - Ecoterrorism - Article 6A. Farm Animal, Crop, and Research Facilities Protection Act. | Ala. Code 1975 § 13A-11-150 - 158 | AL ST § 13A-11-150 to 158 | This article is known as the Farm Animal, Crop, and Research Facilities Protection Act. Under the Act, it is unlawful for any person to intentionally release, steal, destroy, or otherwise cause loss of any animal or crop from an animal or crop facility without the consent of the owner. Other illegal actions include vandalizing obtaining access by false pretenses for the purpose of performing acts not authorized by the facility, and possession of records obtained by theft or deception without authorization of the facility. Violation results in a Class C felony if the loss $250 or more or a Class A misdemeanor if the loss is less $250. | Statute |
| South Africa |
Materials from South Africa(Provided by Melissa Lewis)
|
Policy | ||
| Animal Legal Defense Fund v. State, Dept. of Wildlife and Fisheries | 140 So.3d 8 (La.App. 1 Cir. 4/25/13) | 2012-0971 (La.App. 1 Cir. 4/25/13), 2013 WL 1774638 |
The Animal Legal Defense Fund (ALDF), along with others, filed a petition for injunctive relief and a writ of mandamus against the Louisiana Department of Wildlife and Fish (DWF) for permitting the exhibit of a real tiger ("Tony") at a truck stop owned by Michael Sandlin. An ordinance prohibiting the display of wild animals was in effect when Tony was acquired. Subsequent to that, the Louisiana legislature adopted a law that required those who legally held big cats who were "grandfathered in," obtain a permit from the DWF. After Tony's caretaker, Michael Sandlin was denied a DWF permit because he was not in compliance with the Parish ordinances, Sandlin sued the Parish. The Parish then carved out an exception for him in the ordinances and the DWF, through Secretary Barham, issued a state permit to Sandlin. ADLF and others sued, alleging that the permit violated Louisiana law and the renewal of the permit was arbitrary, capricious, and an abuse of discretion. At the first trial court hearing, the trial court issued a judgment granting the preliminary and permanent injunction ordering DFW to revoke the permit, but the truck stop owner alleged he had not received notice of the hearing and therefore decided to intervene. Once the truck stop was allowed to intervene, a hearing on all pending issues was held, which resulted in the intervenors appealing the trial court’s judgment and the trial court’s denial for a new trial. On appeal here, the appeals court dismissed the appeal, in part, and affirmed, in part, the November 17, 2011 judgment of the trial court. With regard to the issue of standing for the injunction, this court found that the individual named plaintiffs (residents of Louisiana) had taxpayer standing, but the court did not find that plaintiff ALDF alleged and proved sufficient interest to sustain a right of action seeking an injunction against any unlawful conduct by DWF. That part of the November 17, 2011 judgment of the trial court was reversed. Further, the court found that, based on factual findings, there was no error in the trial court's legal conclusion that Michael Sandlin did not meet the legal requirements for a Potentially Dangerous Wild Quadruped permit, and that permanent injunctive relief, enjoining DWF from issuing Michael Sandlin future permits for Tony, was warranted. That part of the trial court judgment was affirmed. |
Case |