Results
| Title | Citation | Alternate Citation | Agency Citation | Summary | Type |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 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 | ||
| CITES Conf. 9.24 |
This is the attempt by the Party States under CITES to define just what "endangered" might mean for different types of plants and animals. |
Treaty | |||
| AU - Cruelty - Queensland Animal Care and Protection Act 2001 (QLD) | Queensland Animal Care and Protection Act 2001 |
The purposes of this Act are to promote the responsible care and use of animals; provide standards for the care and use of animals that--achieve a reasonable balance between the welfare of animals and the interests of persons whose livelihood is dependent on animals; and to allow for the effect of advancements in scientific knowledge about animal biology and changes in community expectations about practices involving animals; to protect animals from unjustifiable, unnecessary or unreasonable pain; to ensure the use of animals for scientific purposes is accountable, open and responsible. Attached pdf is the 2003 reprint. |
Statute | ||
| People v. Chenault | 227 Cal. App. 4th 1503, review filed (Aug. 25, 2014) | 175 Cal. Rptr. 3d 1 (Cal.App.Dist.4, 2014), review filed (Aug. 25, 2014) | Darrell Chenault was convicted on 13 counts of lewd acts on a child under 14 years of age and sentenced to 75 years to life in prison. On appeal he contended that the trial court abused its discretion by allowing a support dog to be present during the testimony of two child witnesses without individualized showings of necessity, and that the presence of the dog was inherently prejudicial and violated his federal constitutional rights to a fair trial and to confront the witnesses against him. The appellate court concluded that a trial court has authority under Evidence Code section 765 to allow the presence of a therapy or support dog during a witness’s testimony.” The court did “not believe that the presence of a support dog is inherently more prejudicial than the presence of a support person,” citing the New York case of Tohom. Chinault argued that “individualized showings of necessity” should have been required for F. and C. before the support dog could be present in the courtroom. The appellate court concluded however that “a case-specific finding that an individual witness needs the presence of a support dog is not required by the federal Constitution,” for which Tohom was again cited. Based on the court's review of the record, the appellate court concluded that the trial court made implicit findings that the presence of Asta, the support dog, would assist or enable F. and C. to testify completely and truthfully without undue harassment or embarrassment. The court also took measures to reduce any possible prejudice to Chenault by setting forth logistics for the entry, positioning, and departure of the support dog, along with F. and C., during jury recesses so the dog was as unobtrusive and least disruptive as reasonably possible. The judgment was affirmed. | Case | |
| FL - Palm Beach County - Chapter 4: Animals (§ 4-24: Animal Care) | Code of Laws and Ordinances Relating to Palm Beach County Government § 4-24 |
This Palm Beach County, Florida ordinance prohibits the act of humane slaughter, as defined by §§ F.S.A. 828.22 and/or 828.23, within earshot or view of the public. A violation of this provision constitutes a civil infraction and is punishable by a fine not to exceed $500. |
Local Ordinance | ||
| In re Polar Bear Endangered Species Act Listing and Section 4(d) Rule Litigation-MDL No.1993 United States Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit. | 720 F.3d 354 (D.C. Cir. 2013) | 2013 WL 2991027 (D.C. Cir. 2013) |
Hunters and hunting organizations sued the Secretary of Interior, the Director of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and the Service itself after the Service listed the polar bear as a threatened species under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) and barred the importation of polar bear trophies under the Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA). On appeal, the appeals court affirmed the lower court’s decision to grant the defendants' motion of summary judgment. |
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 | |
| Medeiros v. Lloyd | The Board of Registration in Veterinary Medicine had sanctioned Dr. Lloyd for improper treatment of a dog, "Pooch," for heartworms. This is a suit for damages against Dr. Lloyd. The briefs are drafted by none other than one of the best-known names in Animal Law, Steven M. Wise. | Pleading | |||
| MA - Disaster Planning - Massachusetts Emergency Animal Annex | Comprehensive Emergency Management Plan (CEMP) | The Comprehensive Emergency Management Plan (CEMP) is an all hazards plan developed to address the natural and man-caused hazards that threaten Massachusetts. The CEMP and ESF Annexes describes the system that will be used in Massachusetts to prevent, prepare for, respond to, and recover from an emergency or disaster. It also identifies and assigns specific areas of responsibility for coordinating resources to support the response to an emergency or disaster. The Massachusetts Emergency Support Function 11 (MAESF-11) Agriculture, Animals and Natural Resources provides a framework for coordination and cooperation across state agencies and other organizations regarding the control and support of animal sheltering, search, rescue, recovery, and reunification needs and activities before, during, and after a disaster, or emergency. | Administrative | ||
| Waters v. Meakin | [1916] 2 KB 111 |
The respondent had been acquitted of causing unnecessary suffering to rabbits (contrary to the Protection of Animals Act 1911, s. 1(1)) by releasing them into a fenced enclosure from which they had no reasonable chance of escape, before setting dogs after them. Dismissing the prosecutor's appeal, the Divisional Court held that the respondent's conduct fell within the exception provided for "hunting or coursing" by sub-s. (3) (b) of s. 1of the 1911 Act. From the moment that the captive animal is liberated to be hunted or coursed, it falls outwith the protection of the 1911 Act, irrespective of whether the hunting or coursing is humane or sportsmanlike. |
Case |