Results
Displaying 6621 - 6630 of 6649
| Title | Citation | Alternate Citation | Summary | Type |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| PA - Rabies - § 459-301. Quarantines | 3 P.S. § 459-301 | PS ST 3 P.S. § 459-301 | This Pennsylvania statute outlines the procedures and regulations relative to the state rabies quarantine procedure for dogs. It also provides that any police officer or state dog warden may humanely kill any dog running at large in a rabies quarantined area without any liability for damages for such killing. | Statute |
| Iowa Pork Producers Association v. Bonta | Slip Copy, 2022 WL 613736 (C.D. Cal. Feb. 28, 2022) | The Iowa Pork Producers Association, an organization that represents Iowa-based industrial pig farmers, filed a lawsuit in federal district court alleging that California’s Proposition 12 is unconstitutional. Proposition 12, a ballot measure that California voters passed in 2018, mandates that pregnant pigs must be housed with a certain amount of space in order for products made from such livestock to be sold in California. Proposition 12 also bans the sale of pork meat from producers that do not comply with the housing requirements, including sales from out of state producers. Plaintiff contended that Proposition 12 violates the dormant commerce clause in that it discriminates against interstate commerce, directly regulates extraterritorial conduct, and that even if it regulates evenhandedly to effectuate a legitimate local public interest, the burden imposed on commerce is clearly excessive in relation to the putative local benefits. The court looked to the purpose of Proposition 12, which is intended to prevent animal cruelty by phasing out extreme methods of farm animal confinement, which also threaten the health and safety of California consumers, and increase the risk of foodborne illness and associated negative fiscal impacts on the state of California. The court found that this purpose is not discriminatory, and that there is no hint of economic protectionism. The court also found that there is no discriminatory effect, as the statute treats all producers the same by imposing the same requirements. The court also denied the extraterritoriality claim because Proposition 12 is not a price control or price affirmation statute and, therefore, does not directly regulate extraterritorial economic conduct. The court also found that the burden imposed on commerce was not clearly excessive in relation to the putative local benefits. The court’s precedent states that even if producers will need to adopt a more costly method of production to comply with Proposition 12, such increased costs do not constitute a substantial burden on interstate commerce, and higher costs to consumers do not qualify as a substantial burden on interstate commerce. The district court dismissed the case, holding that plaintiffs failed to raise serious questions as to the merits of the claims. | Case | |
| IN - Wild Animals - Chapter 26. Wild Animal Permit | IC 14-22-26-1 - 6 | IN ST 14-22-26-1 - 6 | This set of laws deals with Wild Animal Permits in Indiana. Section 3 allows the Director to adopt rules that require permits to possess wild animals protected by laws or rules. The director may also adopt a rule that requires a permit to possess a wild animal that may be harmful or dangerous to plants or animals. Permits under this chapter may be suspended by the director and animal may be seized if the animal is in a position to harm another animal or the life or health of the animal is in peril. This chapter does not apply to licensed commercial animal dealers, zoological parks, circuses, or carnivals. | Statute |
| Rego v. Madalinski | 63 N.E.3d 190 (Ohio Ct. App., 2016) | 2016 -Ohio- 7339 | In this case, appellee's dog attacked appellant's dog while on appellee's property. Veterinary bills were over $10,000, and the municipal court capped compensatory damages at the fair market value of animal of $400, reasoning that animals are considered personal property. On appeal, this court discusses situations where veterinary costs are appropriate as damages, such as veterinary malpractice suits or where the animal had special characteristics like pedigree, training, or breeding income. Though this case does not fit into those categories, the court recognizes a ‘semi-property’ or 'companion property' classification of animals, and reverse the municipal court and remand for a damages hearing. | Case |
| PH - Animal Welfare - Memorandum Issued on the Animal Welfare Act | Memorandum Circular - NO. 2003-153 (on the AWA) |
This Memorandum concerns Republic Act No. 8485, other wise known as the Animal Welfare Act of 1998, passed to protect and promote the welfare of all animals in the Philippines. The Memorandum was issued because, despite the passage of the Act, reports reaching the Committee on Animal Welfare indicate the continued cruelty to animals, especially dogs, in the country today. |
Statute | |
| OR - Testing, animal - 646A.009. Sale of cosmetics developed or manufactured | O.R.S. § 646A.005 - .028 | OR ST § 646A.005 - .028 | This Oregon chapter deals with animal testing in cosmetics. Under the chapter, a manufacturer may not sell or offer to sell in this state a cosmetic that was, on or after January 1, 2024, developed or manufactured using cosmetic animal tests conducted or contracted for by the manufacturer or any supplier of the manufacturer. Limited exceptions exist. In addition to any other penalty provided by law, a manufacturer that sells or offers for sale a cosmetic in violation this act incurs a civil penalty of not more than $5,000 for the first day of the violation and not more than $1,000 for each day that the violation continues. | Statute |
| Sample California Criminal Protection Order for Domestic Violence |
On January 1, 2009, this new protective order will be in effect in the State of California. This revised protective order includes Section 5, "For good cause shown, the court grants the protected persons named above the exclusive care, possession, and control of the following animals." |
Pleading | ||
| UT - Hunting - § 23-20-4.5. Illegal taking, possession, or wanton destruction of protected wildlife | U.C.A. 1953 § 23A-5-312 (formerly cited as U.C.A. 1953 § 23-20-4.5) | UT ST § 23A-5-312 (formerly cited as UT ST § 23-20-4.5) | This statute lists the restitution amounts for the illegal killing of certain species (including bald and golden eagles) of wildlife, with enhanced monetary penalties for "trophy" animals. These funds are used in educational and wildlife enforcement activities by the state. | Statute |
| Re Nature Conservation Council of NSW Inc and Minister for Environment and Water Resources | (2007) 98 ALD 334 | [2007] AATA 1876 |
The Commonwealth Minister for the Environment and Water Resources declared an Ocean Trap and Line Fishery to be an approved wildlife trade operation. This permitted the export of sea life from the fishery. The Nature Conservation Council claimed that the fishery was detrimental to the survival of east coast grey nurse sharks. The Tribunal found that the operation would not be detrimental to the survival of the east coast grey nurse population. |
Case |
| NY - Endangered Species - Chapter 43-B. Of the Consolidated Laws. | N.Y. Envtl. Conserv. Law § 11-0535 | NY ENVIR CONSER § 11-0535 | The New York code for endangered species defines endangered species as any species which meets one of the following criteria: native species in imminent danger of extirpation or extinction in New York; or species listed as endangered by the United States Department of the Interior in the Code of Federal Regulations (50 CFR part 17). | Statute |