Results
Displaying 141 - 150 of 6645
| Title | Citation | Alternate Citation | Summary | Type |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| IN - Animal Sacrifice - THE KERALA ANIMALS AND BIRDS SACRIFICES PROHIBITION ACT, 1968 | 20 of 1968 | This law, specific to the state of Kerala, prohibits the sacrifice of animals and birds within the precincts of temples. No persons may officiate at, perform, or participate in an animal sacrifice - it is a criminal offence. | Statute | |
| Non-US Topical Introductions | Policy | |||
| 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 |
| OH - Initiatives - Issue 1 Prohibition of the hunting of mourning doves | Issue 1, 1998 (failed) | This state issue, rejected by voters in 1998, would have amended Section 1531.02 of the Ohio Revised Code to prohibit the hunting or taking of mourning doves in Ohio. The proposed law specifically would have amended Section 1531.02 of the Ohio Revised Code by adding the words "NO PERSON SHALL HUNT OR TAKE A MOURNING DOVE." The measure failed with only 40.5% voting for the proposition. | Statute | |
| First Time User Tutorial |
Welcome to the Animal Legal & Historical Center!Wondering where to go first?Try the front page |
Basic page | ||
| 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 | |
| Baker v. SeaWorld Entertainment, Inc. | Slip Copy, 2019 WL 6118448 (S.D. Cal. Nov. 18, 2019) | Plaintiffs brought a securities fraud class action against the collective Defendants, including Seaworld Entertainment, Inc. This action involved statements and omissions made by the Defendants following a 2013 documentary titled Blackfish. The issues centered on the attendance impact that the documentary had on Seaworld. Company-wide attendance declined in 2013 and 2014, however, several officials of the Company made statements that there was no attendance impact resulting from the documentary. Both Plaintiffs and Defendants moved to exclude the testimony of several experts. The Court ultimately affirmed its tentative rulings, denied Defendant’s motion to exclude the testimony of two of Plaintiff’s experts, granted Defendant’s motion to exclude the testimony of Dr. James Gibson, granted in part and denied in part Plaintiff’s motion to exclude the testimony of Dr. Craig Lewis, granted Plaintiff’s motion to exclude the testimony of Dr. Randolph Bucklin, and denied Defendant’s motion for summary judgment. | Case | |
| U.S. v. Chevron USA, Inc. | 2009 WL 3645170 (Only the Westlaw citation is currently available.) | After 35 dead Brown Pelicans were discovered in the space between the inner wall of the caisson and the outer wall of a wellhead, Chevron was charged with a violation of the Migratory Bird Treaty Act. But, the Court held that the MBTA was clearly not intended to apply to commercial ventures where, occasionally, protected species might be incidentally killed as a result of totally legal and permissible activities. Therefore, at the plea hearing the Court refused to accept the plea of guilty from Chevron. | Case |