Results
| Title | Citation | Alternate Citation | Agency Citation | Summary | Type |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| WV - Racing - Article 23. Horse and Dog Racing | W. Va. Code, § 19-23-9 - 19-23-30 | WV ST § 19-23-9 - § 19-23-30 | This Act requires a license from the West Virginia Racing Commission in order to conduct horse or dog racing. Anyone who participates or has anything to do with dog racing or horse racing at a licensed track, such as employees and horse/dog owners, must have a permit from the commission. This Act allows for the West Virginia Racing Commission to continue its existence as a public corporation. The Commission has full jurisdiction over and must supervise all horse and dog race meetings and all persons involved in the holding or conducting of horse and dog race meetings. Each county that already permits horse racing must vote and approve dog racing in order for the Commission to issue a license for a racing facility. | Statute | |
| Sentencia C-283, 2014 | Sentencia C-283/14 | This is an unconstitutionality claim against Articles 1º, 2º and 3º of Ley 1638, 2013 that prohibit the use of native and exotic wild animals in circuses. Plaintiffs argued that these Articles violated numerous provisions of the Constitution, including the right to work, right to choose a profession, rights to culture and recreation, and a violation to the freedom private initiative of the owners of the circuses. In decision C-283, the court held that Congress has the power to prohibit certain cultural manifestations that involve animal cruelty. The Court stated that “culture needs to be permanently reevaluated so it can adapt to human evolution, to guarantee of rights and the fulfillment of duties. Especially when the purpose is to eliminate the traces of a marginalized society that has excluded certain individuals and collectives.” The court also stated that the duty to protect animals is not absolute, as its application can be limited by values, principles and constitutional norms in specific cases that are contradictory to the principales. The judge must analyze each case under a reasonableness test, in a way that cultural manifestations can work harmoniously with the rights, principles, and duties established in the legal system. The Court held Article 1 of Ley 1638, 2013 constitutional, and refrains from deciding on the constitutionality of Articles 2 and 3, for lack of evidence to render a decision. | Case | ||
| NO - Aquaculture - Regulations concerning abattoirs and processing plants for aquaculture animals | Chap. 1 - 5, Regulations concerning abattoirs and processing plants for aquaculture animals |
The purpose of these regulations is to promote good health in aquaculture animals and ensure good fish welfare. |
Statute | ||
| Colleen Harrington v. David Hovanec, and DOES 1 through 20 inclusive | This California complaint for damages raises five causes of action: (1) gross negligence; (2) trespass to chattel; (3) conversion; (4) intentional infliction of emotional distress; and (5) violation of California Civil Code Section 3340 (related to damage to animals as property). The lawsuit arose from the negligent and/or intentional shooting of plaintiff's dog by defendant in May of 2004. According to the complaint, plaintiff's dog was shot at least thirteen times by defendant's two different guns. | Pleading | |||
| Defenders of Wildlife v. Salazar | 776 F.Supp.2d 1178 (D.Mont., 2011) | 2011 WL 1345670 (D.Mont.) |
The U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service's 2009 Final Rule unlawfully delisted wolves in Idaho and Montana from the Endangered Species Act (ESA). The Rule was vacated. The Court held that it had no authority to decide that it would be more equitable to ignore Congress' instruction on how an endangered species must be protected so that the wolves could be taken under the states' management plans. In addition, the Court held that it was inappropriate for the Court to approve a settlement at the expense of the Non–Settling Litigants' legal interests. |
Case | |
| Placey v. Placey | 51 So.3d 374 (Ala. Civ. App., 2010) | 2010 WL 2342397 (Ala. Civ. App.) |
The appellate court held that the Protection from Abuse Act authorized the trial court to determine and award ownership of Preston the dog in a domestic violence dispute between a mother and daughter. It then awarded ownership rights to the mother because took better care of the Preston and it was in his best interest. |
Case | |
| US - Endangered Species - Part 222 - General Endangered and Threatened Marine Species | 69 FR 4557 | 50 C.F.R. § 222.101 to .310 | These ESA (Endangered Species Act) regulations relate to certificate of exemptions for pre-Act endangered species part under the general regulations for endangered and threatened marine species. The Assistant Administrator may issue permits for scientific purposes or for the enhancement of the propagation or survival of the affected endangered or threatened species in accordance with these regulations. Any person to whom a Certificate of Exemption has been issued by the National Marine Fisheries Service may apply to the Assistant Administrator for renewal of such certificate. | Administrative | |
| Rhode Island Public Laws 1857-1872: Chapter 912: An act for the prevention of cruelty to animals. | 1872 R.I. Pub. Laws 912 | A collection of the laws concerning cruelty to animals from Rhode Island for the years 1857-1872. The act covers such topics as bird fighting, cruelty to animals, enforcement of the act, and procedural issues concerning the act. | Statute | ||
| CO - Denver - Breed - Sec. 8-55. Pit bulls prohibited. | Sec. 8.55 |
This Denver, Colorado ordinance provides that it is unlawful for any person to own, possess, keep, exercise control over, maintain, harbor, transport, or sell within the city any pit bull. A pit bull is defined broadly as "any dog that is an American Pit Bull Terrier, American Staffordshire Terrier, Staffordshire Bull Terrier, or any dog displaying the majority of physical traits of any one (1) or more of the above breeds, or any dog exhibiting those distinguishing characteristics which substantially conform to the standards established by the American Kennel Club or United Kennel Club for any of the above breeds." [emphasis added] A person who applied for and received a special pit bull license before August 7, 1989 (date of the publication of the ordinance) and who maintains the pit bull in compliance with the requirements of the ordinance may keep a pit bull. |
Local Ordinance | ||
| Slavin v. United States | 2005 WL 742707 (8th Cir. 2005) |
An Arkansas woman who raises gamefowl brought an action challenging the constitutionality of the Animal Welfare Act which prohibits the interstate transportation of birds for the purposes of fighting. The trial court dismissed the woman's claim and the Court of Appeals affirmed holding the statute is not vague. |
Case |