Results
| Title | Citation | Alternate Citation | Agency Citation | Summary | Type | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Merced v. Kasson | 577 F.3d 578 (C.A.5 (Tex.),2009) | 2009 WL 2343172 (C.A.5 (Tex.),2009) |
Plaintiff José Merced, a Santeria Oba Oriate, or priest, brought action against the City of Euless alleging that city ordinances prohibiting the keeping of animals for slaughter and the slaughtering of animals prevented him from performing animal sacrifices essential to Santeria religious practice. The United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas ruled in favor of the city, but denied its request for attorney fees. The Court of Appeals reversed the decision in favor of the city and affirmed the denial of attorney fees. The court found that the city did not prove that the burden it placed on the plaintiff advanced a compelling interest and was the least restrictive means of doing so. In fact, the Court noted that prior to the ban, Merced had performed these sacrifices for sixteen years without creating health hazards or unduly harming any animals. The City's purported interest was further undermined by the fact that hunters are allowed to butcher dead animals at their homes. Thus, Euless failed to assert a compelling governmental interest in support of its ordinances that burden Merced's religious conduct. |
Case | |||||||
| US - PPIA and FMIA Regulations - Rules of Practice | 9 C.F.R. 500.1 - 500.8 | The following Poultry Products Inspection Act and Federal Meat Inspection act regulations detail the provisions for when the Food Safety and Inspection Service can take regulatory control. | Administrative | ||||||||
| US - Meat - Chapter 12. Meat Inspection. | 21 U.S.C.A. § 601 - 695 | The Federal Meat Inspection Act of 1906 (FMIA) was enacted to prevent adulterated or misbranded meat and meat products from being sold as food and to ensure that meat and meat products are slaughtered and processed under sanitary conditions. The Act requires covered meat products to be labeled and packaged in accordance with the chapter to effectively regulate commerce and protect the health and welfare of consumers. | Statute | ||||||||
| AR - Dog - Consolidated Dog Laws | A.C.A. § 20-19-101 to 408; § 2-40-110; § 15-41-113; § 15-42-303; § 5-54-126 | AR ST §§ 20-19-101 to 408; § 2-40-110; § 15-41-113; § 15-42-303; § 5-54-126 | These Arkansas statutes comprise the state's dog laws. Among the provisions including licensing laws, rabies control, and mandatory sterilization laws. Also contained is the state's Wolf-Hybrid statutory section. | Statute | |||||||
| RI - Importation, pets - 40-05-1.8. Importation of Dogs and Cats for the Purpose of Rescue, Shelter, Foster Care, | 250 RI ADC 40-05-1.8 | This Rhode Island regulation provides that any entities that import a dog or cat for rescue, adoption, foster care, brokering, and/or remote sales must register with the Department via the submittal of an application form provided by the Department. | Administrative | ||||||||
| Derecho Animal Volume 9 Núm 3 |
|
Policy | |||||||||
| Jones v. Butz | 374 F.Supp. 1284 (D.C.N.Y. 1974) |
This action involves a challenge, under the Free Exercise and Establishment Clauses of the First Amendment, to the Humane Slaughter Act and in particular to the provisions relating to ritual slaughter as defined in the Act and which plaintiffs suggest involve the Government in the dietary preferences of a particular religious (e.g., Orthodox Jews) group. The court held that there is no violation of Establishment Clause because no excessive governmental entanglement and by making it possible for those who wish to eat ritually acceptable meat to slaughter the animal in accordance with the tenets of their faith, Congress neither established the tenets of that faith nor interfered with the exercise of any other. |
Case | ||||||||
| State v. Smith | 54 A.3d 638 (Conn.App.) | 139 Conn.App. 107 |
A defendant was charged and convicted of one count of permitting a dog to roam at large. Upon appeal, the defendant argued the statute he was convicted under was unconstitutionally vague and that he was convicted under insufficient evidence. Defendant contended that simply having his dog off-leash did not mean that it was roaming at large and not under his control where the dog responded to verbal commands. The court rejected both of defendant's arguments, finding that the plain language of the statute clearly prohibits an owner allowing a dog to move freely on another's property unrestrained and not under the owner's direct influence. |
Case | |||||||
| CA - Farm Animal Cruelty - Chapter 13.8. Farm Animal Cruelty. § 25991. Definitions. | West's Ann. Cal. Health & Safety Code § 25990 - 25994 | CA HLTH & S § 25990 - 25994 | This section provides the definitions, exception,s and enforcement provisions for the Chapter 13.8, Farm Animal Cruelty. The section was added after voters approved Initiative Measure (Prop. 2) in 2008. Any person who violates any of the provisions of this chapter is guilty of a misdemeanor, and upon conviction thereof shall be punished by a fine not to exceed one thousand dollars ($1,000) or by imprisonment in the county jail for a period not to exceed 180 days or by both such fine and imprisonment. | Statute | |||||||
| EU - Farming - Information Collection during Farm Inspections | (2006/778/EC) |
A decision concerning minimum requirements for the collection of information during inspections of calf, pig, and hen farms. Passed in recognition of the fact that collection of data on animal welfare inspections is essential for the European Community to evaluate the impact of its policy in this field, the directive standardized farm inspection reporting procedures, and required annual reports from each member state outlining (a) the most serious instances of non-compliance with EU law, and (b) what was being done to diminish such non-compliance. |
Statute |