Results
Displaying 1 - 10 of 6638
| Title | Citation | Alternate Citation | Summary | Type |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| GA - Initiatives - Georgia Amendment 2 (right to hunt) | 2006 Georgia Amendment 2 | This Georgia constitutional amendment was presented to voters on the 2006 ballot. The measure preserves the state's tradition of hunting and fishing for the public good. Amendment 2 passed by a margin of 81% to 19%. | Statute | |
| Environmental Code of Ecuador | The Environmental Code was published in 2018. It aims to “guarantee the right of people to live in a healthy and ecologically balanced environment, as well as protect the rights of nature for the realization of good living.” This code was the base for reforming the Criminal Code, which increased the punishment for animal cruelty. This law contains administrative sanctions, including fines, animal confiscation, community service, prohibition to acquire or keep animals temporarily or permanently, and payment of veterinary, food, and maintenance costs required for the animal’s recovery, among others. The environmental code contains environmental management provisions, including wildlife, urban fauna, climate change, waste management, etc. Under this code, the welfare of domestic animals and wildlife is a duty. It establishes the obligations and responsibilities related to animals. Regulations, control management, and coordination of the parameters outlined in this law lay on the Autonomous decentralized Municipal or Metropolitan Governments. For instance, cities have the power to regulate animal welfare concerning the ownership of animals and during the rearing, commercialization, breeding, transportation, and euthanasia of animals. Another example of this power vested in the cities and municipalities is the responsibility to establish plans and programs to prevent, manage, and control animal populations. This includes informative and educational campaigns on animal welfare, sterilization, and responsible adoption. | Statute | ||
| WV - Eagle - § 20-2-5c. Protection of bald eagles and golden eagles; unlawful acts; | W. Va. Code, § 20-2-5c | WV ST § 20-2-5c | This statute makes it a misdemeanor to possess or barter in golden or bald eagles, and any subsequent convictions under this chapter result in felony prosecution. In addition to fines and imprisonment, violators face revocation of hunting license privileges for up to ten years. | Statute |
| NV - Equine Activity - Limitations on liability; duties of a participant in an equine activity; exceptions; definitions | Nev. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 41.519 | Nev. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 41.519 (West) | This Nevada statute limits the liability of equine sponsors and professionals, veterinarians, or any other person, for an injury to or death of a participant as a result of an inherent risk of equine activity. The statute also provides the duties that equine activity participants must complete. Finally, the statute provides the exceptions for when a person is not immune from civil liability under the statute and the definition of terms used within the statute. | Statute |
| MO - Lien, care and board - Chapter 430. Liens for Keeping, Training and Breeding Animals | V. A. M. S. 430.150 - 220 | MO ST 430.150 - 220 | This chapter of Missouri laws concerns liens for the keeping, training, and breeding of animals. Section 430.150 states that every person who keeps, boards or trains any horse, mule or other animal has a lien on such animal, and on any vehicle, harness or equipment that came with the animal, for the amount due. No owner or claimant has the right to take any such property out of the custody of the person having such lien, except with the lienholder's consent or on the payment of such debt. Section 430.160 outlines the procedure for enforcement of the lien, which includes where to file a claim and the notice requirements. | Statute |
| Lee v. Cook |
Amicus Curae brief on why suit for wrongful death of a dog can include emotional damages. |
Pleading | ||
| Jippes v. van Landbouw | Case C-189/01(ECJ) |
Jippes, an ECJ case from 2001, involved a legal dispute over the hoof and mouth pandemic ravaging Europe at the time. To stem spread of the disease, the EU passed a community directive banning the use of preventative vaccinations and mandating compulsory slaughter. The plaintiff—or “applicant,” as plaintiffs are referred to in Europe—owned a variety of farm animals, and, loathe to kill them, argued that European law embraced a general principle that animals were shielded from physical pain and suffering. Such a principle, the applicant argued, could only be overridden when absolutely necessary; and the compulsory slaughter directive was in direct conflict with this principle. The ECJ, however, rejected the applicant’s argument, holding that the Animal Welfare Protocol of 1997 did not delineate any new important animal-friendly principles in European law, but merely codified old ones. |
Case | |
| Wright v. Fish and Game Commission (unpublished) | 2003 Cal. App. Unpub. LEXIS 8091 | 2003 WL 22007258 (Cal.App. 4 Dist.) |
The California Court of Appeal upheld the state's Fish and Game Commission’s ferret ban against an equal protection challenge from a ferret owner. The owner argued that the ban discriminated between ferret owners and owners of other companion animals. However, the court found a rational relation between the ban and concerns about wildlife and human health (from attacks and from rabies). |
Case |
| Solicitud de Atracción 249/2023. Caso Elefante Ely. Ciudad de Mexico | Solicitud de Atracción 249/2023 | This is a writ of Amparo on behalf of Ely, a 38-year-old female African elephant that lived in a circus before being relocated to the San Juan de Arago Zoo in 2012. In this instance, a concerned citizen and activist affiliated with the Association "Opening Cages, Opening Minds" ("Abriendo Jaulas, Abriendo Mentes") filed an Amparo petitioning the authorities in Mexico City to take necessary actions for the relocation of Ely from the zoo to a sanctuary in Brazil. The petitioner asserted that Ely had endured abuse from a young age during her 25-year tenure in a circus, and was currently experiencing deprivation of freedom at the zoo. Ely is solitary and grappling with skin and nail injuries, infections, and ailments such as dermatitis and hyperkeratosis. The petitioner further argued that Ely was suffering from issues in one of her limbs due to an old fracture and jaw problems stemming from the use of a handling hook during her circus days, among other concerns. Moreover, the elephant's confinement in a cement enclosure has compounded adverse effects on her physical and psychological well-being. Observations indicate distressing behavior including self-harm, such as eating her own feces, and striking herself with her trunk and against the fence. Ely also exhibited repetitive behavior attributed to inadequate mental, physical, social, and environmental stimulation. The treatment she has received is deemed a violation of ethical standards for animal respect and protection. The judge determined that Ely received appropriate and ample care at the zoo, where her enclosure adhered to the needs of her species. It was noted that she was receiving the necessary attention to address the chronic ailments stemming from her time in the circus. Consequently, the San Juan de Aragón Zoo fulfilled its obligation to protect and care for the elephant, addressing her physiological, behavioral, and health requirements and ensuring her overall well-being. Following the verdict, the zoo enlarged Ely's enclosure and introduced Gypsy, another elephant of similar size and age, to provide companionship for Ely. After pursuing various legal avenues without success, the complainant sought review from the Supreme Court of Justice, and the high court accepted the request. The Supreme Court will review the decision of the Fourth Administrative District court, which ruled for the zoo, finding that Ely was being kept in adequate conditions. | Case | |
| VA - Domestic Violence - Protective orders | Va. Code Ann.§§ 16.1-253, 16.1-253.1, 16.1-253.4, 16.1-279.1, 19.2-152.8, 19.2-152.9, and 19.2-152.10 | VA ST §§ 16.1-253, 16.1-253.1, 16.1-253.4, 16.1-279.1, 19.2-152.8, 19.2-152.9, and 19.2-152.10 | In 2014, Virginia amended its Protective Order laws to grant petitioners possession of any “companion animal," so long as the petitioner is considered the owner. Companion animals include any family pets, such as dogs, cats, hamsters, etc., but do not include farm animals. To be considered an owner, a petitioner must either have a property interest in the animal, keep or house the animal, have the animal in their care, or have acted as a custodian of the animal. This new provision is now included in Virginia's Emergency Protective Orders, Preliminary Protective Orders, and Protective Orders. | Statute |