Results
Displaying 71 - 80 of 6637
| Title | Citation | Alternate Citation | Agency Citation | Summary | Type |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| AU - Wildlife - Territory Parks and Wildlife Conservation Act 1977 (NT) | Territory Parks and Wildlife Conservation Act 1977 |
An Act to make provision for and in relation to the establishment of Territory Parks and other Parks and Reserves and the study, protection, conservation and sustainable utilisation of wildlife. |
Statute | ||
| AUTO 1928 de 2022 | AUTO 1928 de 2022 | In Colombia, municipalities are not allowed to prohibit bullfighting. It is a power reserved for Congress. Bogota attempted to regulate the practice through ordinance 767 in 2020. Since the city was not allowed to prohibit bullfights, it regulated them by prohibiting the use of sharp objects and killing of the bulls in the ring. In addition, they required that 30% of the publicity of the event be focused on educating the public on the suffering of bulls. It imposed a 20% tax and decreased the number of annual bullfights allowed from 8 to 4. During this time, no bids were sent to use "Plaza Santamaria" (Bogota's bullfighting stadium) because owners and sponsors of this practice did not agree with such requirements. Thus, Plaza Santamaria did not hold any bullfights since 2020. In December 2022, the Constitutional Court ordered the city to refrain from taking any action conducing to the violation of decision T-296 of 2013 and ordered the opening of Plaza Santamaria “to allow bullfights to take place in the usual conditions as an expression of cultural diversity and social pluralism,” effectively ordering the city to do what’s necessary for the comeback of bullfighting to the capital. | Case | ||
| Riverbrook v. Fabode | 963 N.W.2d 415 (2020), aff'd in part, vacated in part, 981 N.W.2d 468 (Mich. 2022) | 333 Mich. App. 645, 2020 WL 5580152 (Mich. Ct. App. Sept. 17, 2020) | This Michigan case centers on the adequacy of the evidence supporting a request for an assistance animal. Antony Fabode lived in a mobile home on property that was leased to his sister by Riverbrook. In the spring of 2018, Antony obtained a puppy, King, which he claims is a Labrador Retriever mix, but was suspected by Riverbrook as being a banned pit bull type dog. Riverbrook consequently notified Antony's sister of the violation and ordered the dog removed from the premises. To that order, Antony first responded to Riverbrook with a certificate claiming that King was an emotional support animal (ESA) and, after that was rejected as insufficient, came back with a letter by limited license professional counselor, Anne Venet. After again denying the request, Riverbrook sought to enforce the consent judgment with an order of eviction. The district court granted the motion and ordered Antony's removal. Antony sought a stay of eviction on the grounds that he and his sister were authorized to possess King as an ESA. At the district court hearing, Venet testified in support of her letter explaining that she determined Antonuy's need for an ESA after a brief phone call. The court then declined to permit questioning by Riverbrook into the credibility of the determination that Antony was disabled and needed King as a therapeutic aid. Ultimately, the district court denied the writ for eviction. The circuit court affirmed that ruling based on the FHA and the caselaw that supports an unobtrusive line of questioning. The crux of this appeals centers on whether the lower court's order denying Riverbrook's writ of eviction was erroneous after the court disallowed Riverbrook's attorney from questioning the reliability of the evidence of disability and need for an assistance animal. The Michigan Court of Appeals found that "the district and circuit courts avoided their gatekeeper role under MRE 702 despite Riverbrook's repeated objections to the reliability and admissibility of the Fabodes’ evidence." This hampered Riverbrook's ability to discover whether the information presented was reliable and supported Antony's disability-related request and whether Riverbrook refused to make a reasonable accommodation for a tenant based on disability or handicap. The circuit court order was vacated the matter was remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. | Case | |
| US - Livestock - To Amend Labeling Regulations under the Federal Meat Inspection Act and the Poultry Products Inspection Act | Submitted by Animal Welfare Institute | The Animal Welfare Institute (AWI) submits this petition for rulemaking in compliance with United Stated Department of Agriculture (USDA) regulation 9 C.F.R. § 392 and the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. § 551 et seq. AWI respectfully requests USDA’s Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) to amend labeling regulations under the Federal Meat Inspection Act (FMIA) and the Poultry Products Inspection Act (PPIA) to require independent third-party certification for the approval of animal welfare and environmental stewardship claims on meat and poultry products. This action is necessary to 1) prevent the misleading and deceptive use of animal welfare and environmental stewardship claims, 2) provide for consistency and transparency in the label approval process, 3) meet consumer expectations for the label approval process, and 4) protect from financial harm those farmers making legitimate use of these value-added claims. Read the Federal Meat Inspection Act regulation in effect at the time the AWI petitioned. | Administrative | ||
| AK - Zoo - § 09.65.180. Civil liability of zoos | AS § 09.65.180 | AK ST § 09.65.180 | The Alaska law provides that, except as provided in (b), a person who owns or operates a zoo is strictly liable for injury to a person or property if the injury is caused by an animal owned by or in the custody of the zoo. | Statute | |
| US - Marine Mammals - Taking and Importing Marine Mammals; Taking Marine Mammals Incidental | 2001 WL 929542 (F.R.) | FR Doc. 01-20647 (2001) |
NMFS, upon application from the University of California San Diego, Scripps Institution of Oceanography (Scripps), is issuing regulations to govern the unintentional take of a small number of marine mammals incidental to the continued operation of a low frequency (LF) sound source by Scripps. |
Administrative | |
| In re Estate of Howard Brand, Late of Essex Junction, Vermont |
This Vermont case considers the effectiveness of a clause in a testator’s will that directs his executor to destroy any animals that he owns at the time of his death. The testator, Howard Brand, was believed to have owned four horses and one mule at the time of his death. An unincorporated association entitled, “The Coalition to Save Brand’s Horses” was formed in response to this unusual post-mortem request, and sought to intervene in the lawsuit. In a clear case of first impression in Vermont, the Chittenden County Court held that the clause as set forth in Brand’s last codicil mandating the destruction of his animals is void as contrary to public policy. |
Pleading | |||
| IN - Cattle Slaughter - JHARKHAND BOVINE ANIMAL PROHIBITION OF SLAUGHTER ACT, 2005 | 11 of 2005 | The Act, specific to the state of Jharkhand, prohibits the slaughter of bovine animals including cows, calves, heifers, bulls and bullocks. Persons may not transport bovine animals from the state to other states for slaughter, or export any bovine animals for slaughter. Persons may not sell, purchase or possess the flesh of bovine animals. The Act provides for the setting up of institutions for the maintenance and care of uneconomic cows by the government or local authorities. Violations of the Act would lead to imprisonment and fines. | Statute | ||
| WA - Research - 18.92.270 Higher education facilities--Dogs and cats used for research--Adoption | West's RCWA 18.92.270 | WA ST 18.92.270 | This 2019 law from Washington states that a higher education facility that utilizes dogs or cats for research and receives public funding must make reasonable efforts to offer the dog or cat for adoption upon conclusion of the animal's use for research. The attending veterinarian or designee must assess the health of the dog or cat to determine whether it is suitable for adoption. A facility that offers dogs or cats for adoption to an animal care and control agency or an animal rescue group under this section may enter into an agreement to facilitate adoptions. | Statute | |
| NH - Domestic Violence - Chapter 173-B. Protection of Persons from Domestic Violence | N.H. Rev. Stat. § 173-B:1, 173:B4, 173:B5 | NH ST §§ 173-B:1, 173:B4, 173:B5 | New Hampshire now considers animal cruelty to be “abuse” under its protection of persons from domestic violence statute. The law now allows a judge to grant the petitioner of a protective order exclusive care, custody, or control of any animal owned, possessed, leased, kept, or held by the victim, the abuser, or a minor child in the household; the law also allows a judge to order the abuser to stay away from the pet in both temporary and final domestic violence protective orders. | Statute |