Results
| Title | Citation | Alternate Citation | Agency Citation | Summary | Type |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Assembly Bill No. 485 | An act to amend Section 31753 of the Food and Agricultural Code, and to amend Section 122357 of, and to add Section 122354.5 to, the Health and Safety Code, relating to public health. [Approved by Governor October 13, 2017. Filed with Secretary of State October 13, 2017.] | Policy | |||
| American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals et al v. Ringling Brothers, et al, |
This case involves the Ringling Brothers circus company’s mistreatment of elephants brought by the ASPCA. Plaintiffs alleged that the alleged routine beating, chaining, and other mistreatment amounted to an unlawful taking of an endangered species under the Endangered Species Act (ESA). Judge rejects defendants’ motion to dismiss and order the case to proceed. |
Pleading | |||
| Resolution N° 07, 2023, Caso Kira - Peru | CUARTO JUZGADO PENAL UNIPERSONAL TRANSITORIO SEDE CARABAYLLO, Resolucion No. 7, 2023 | The plaintiff filed a lawsuit against the defendant, arguing the defendant committed a crime against his patrimony and cruel acts against animals under the criminal code. The plaintiff attended a social gathering with her children and left their two dogs, Kira and Logan, playing outside. The plaintiff returned to their home to find that their neighbor, the defendant, had committed an act of bestiality against Kira. The court discussed several constitutional questions and theories of punishment. It weighed the factors of what the defendant had done to Kira with his lack of prior record and low chance of recidivism. The court decided that the defendant was to serve 17 months of incarceration and was required to pay civil fines for the suffering of both the plaintiff and Kira. Rooted in the issue of animal welfare, too, was its holding in prohibiting the defendant from “keeping” animals to further reduce the risk of recidivism. Ultimately, the court based its decisions on grounds of animal welfare and condemnation of cruelty towards animals. | Case | ||
| Ecuador - Dangerous dog - Regulation for the Responsible ownership of Dogs in Ecuador | Reglamento de Tenencia y Manejo Responsable de Perros | This regulation has been in effect since 2009, and it seeks to regulate the responsible ownership of dogs. It focuses on those breeds that are not recommended as pets because they are considered dangerous. This regulation establishes the standards of welfare for the keeping of dogs, duties, and obligations of owners and keepers. In addition, it regulates the breeding and commercialization of dogs, population control, dogs as companion animals, dangerous dogs, working dogs, and service dogs. | Statute | ||
| AL - Dog - Consolidated Dog Laws | Ala. Code 1975 § 3-1-1 - 29; § 3-6-1 - 4; § 3-6A-1 - 8; § 3-7A-1 - 16; § 3-8-1; § 9-11-305 - 307; § 9-11-238; § 45-37A-53.01 | AL ST § 3-1-1 - 29; § 3-6-1 - 4; § 3-6A-1 - 8; § 3-7A-1 - 16; § 3-8-1; § 9-11-305 - 307; § 9-11-238; § 45-37A-53.01 | These statutes comprise Alabama's relevant dog laws. Included among the provisions are licensing requirements, dangerous dog provisions, and the chapter on rabies. | Statute | |
| Wilkins v. Daniels | Slip Copy, 2012 WL 6644465 (S.D.Ohio, 2012) |
Various owners of exotic and wild animals filed a lawsuit in order to obtain a temporary restraining order and a permanent/preliminary injunction against the Ohio Department of Agriculture and its Director, David Daniels. The owners of the exotic and wild animals argued the Ohio Dangerous Wild Animals and Restricted Snakes Act, which the Ohio Department of Agriculture and its Director were trying to enforce, was unconstitutional. The district court denied the owners’ motion for obtain a temporary restraining order and a permanent/preliminary injunction reasoning that the exceptions to the Act’s ban on owning wild and exotic animals does not violate the owners’ freedom of association rights, that the legislature had a legitimate purpose so as to not violate procedural due process with regards to micro-chipping wild and exotic animals, and that the Act did not constitute an unconstitutional takings. Significantly, the court recognized that owners of wild and exotic animals have a limited or qualified property interest in said animals. |
Case | ||
| Kanoa Inc., v. Clinton | 1 F. Supp. 2d 1088 (1998) |
Plaintiff cruise company filed a motion for a temporary restraining order and a preliminary injunction to halt scientific research of the defendant government, alleging standing under the National Environmental Policy Act ("NEPA"), the Marine Mammal Protection Act ("MMPA"), and the Endangered Species Act ("ESA"). |
Case | ||
| AZ - Disaster planning - Arizona State Emergency Response and Recovery Plan | Arizona State Emergency Response and Recovery Plan | This part of Arizona's emergency response plan describes the state's responsibility toward pets and service animals. | Administrative | ||
| US - Whales - Proposed Threatened Status for Southern Resident Killer Whales | FR Doc. 04-27929 |
We, the NMFS, have completed an update on the status review of Southern Resident killer whales (Orcinus orca) under the Endangered Species Act (ESA). Based on the review of the best available scientific and commercial information, including new data, published papers, and workshop reports available since the review in 2002, we are proposing to list the Southern Resident killer whales as threatened because these killer whales constitute a distinct population segment (DPS) under the ESA and are likely to become endangered in the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of their range. We are not proposing to designate critical habitat at this time, but are requesting public comments on the issues pertaining to this proposed rule. |
Administrative | ||
| AU - Exotic diseases in Animals Act 1981 (QLD) | Exotic diseases in Animals Act 1981 |
An Act to provide for the control, eradication and prevention of exotic diseases in animals, the compensation of owners for loss or destruction of animals and property during outbreaks of exotic diseases, the establishment of an exotic diseases expenses and compensation fund and for related purposes. |
Statute |