Results
| Title | Citation | Alternate Citation | Agency Citation | Summary | Type |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| COMPASSION IN WORLD FARMING LIMITED v.THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE ENVIRONMENT, FOOD AND RURAL AFFAIRS |
Plaintiff organization suggest that the UK government has not adopted adequate regulations for the protection of broiler chickens, under the obligations of EEC Directives or under UK law. |
Pleading | |||
| State v. Cochran | 365 S.W.3d 628 (Mo.App. W.D., 2012) | 2012 WL 1499893 (Mo.App. W.D.) |
Prompted by a phone call to make a return visit to the defendant's house, the Missouri Department of Agriculture and Animal Control were asked, by the defendant, to wait at the door. After waiting by the door for some time, the officers discovered the defendant in the backyard, where she housed at least eleven dogs, trying to remove dog excrement from a pen and trying to remove ice from dog bowls. After further investigation, the defendant was charged with one count of animal abuse and with one count of violating a city ordinance for failure to vaccinate. At the trial, the defendant was convicted on both accounts. On appeal, however, the defendant was found guilty of animal abuse, but was cleared from the ordinance violation. |
Case | |
| EU - Zoos - Council Directive relating to the keeping of wild animals in zoos | COUNCIL DIRECTIVE 1999/22/EC |
The European Union has adopted common minimum standards for housing and caring for animals in zoos with a view to reinforcing the role of zoos in conserving biodiversity. |
Statute | ||
| US - Livestock - Petition To Amend the Inspection and Handling of Livestock for Exportation Regulations to Include Fitness for Transport Requirements | Submitted by Animal Welfare Institute and World Society for the Protection of Animals | This petition is submitted on behalf of the Animal Welfare Institute (“AWI”) and the United States office of the World Society for the Protection of Animals (“WSPA”) and requests that the United States Department of Agriculture (“USDA”), and its Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (“APHIS”), initiate rulemaking to amend the “exportation of animals” regulations by adopting the animal welfare standards of the World Organisation for Animal Health (“OIE”) for the transport of animals. Read the regulations this petition challenges. | Administrative | ||
| WV - Pet Trust - § 44D-4-408. Trust for care of animal | W. Va. Code, § 44D-1-110; W. Va. Code, § 44D-4-408; W. Va. Code, § 44D-4-409 | WV ST § 44D-1-110; WV ST § 44D-4-408; WV ST § 44D-4-409 | These West Virginia statutes regulate trusts for the care of animals. A pet trust may be created to provide for the care of an animal alive during the grantor's lifetime. The trust terminates upon the death of the animal. Property of a trust may be applied only to its intended use. A trust may be enforced by a person appointed in the terms of the trust instrument or by a person appointed by the court. | Statute | |
| Defenders of Wildlife v. Dalton | 97 F. Supp. 2d 1197 (2000) |
Plaintiff sought a preliminary injunction to prevent defendant government official from lifting the embargo against tuna from Mexico's vessels in the Eastern Pacific Ocean. Plaintiffs alleged irreparable injury if three stocks of dolphins became extinct. The court found plaintiffs failed to produce evidence showing irreparable injury. |
Case | ||
| SC - Cruelty - Consolidated Cruelty Statutes | Code 1976 § 47-1-10 - 225; Code 1976 § 16-15-120 | SC ST § 47-1-10 - 225; SC ST § 16-15-120 | This South Carolina subsection comprises the state's anti-cruelty laws. The term "animal" under this subchapter includes all living vertebrate creatures except homo sapiens (but see the exclusion section where fowl are specifically excluded). Animal cruelty occurs when a person knowingly or intentionally overloads, overdrives, overworks, ill-treats any animal, deprives any animal of necessary sustenance or shelter, inflicts unnecessary pain or suffering upon any animal, or by omission or commission knowingly or intentionally causes these things to be done. The statute also has a felony provision for the torture, tormenting, needless mutilation, cruel killing, or infliction of excessive or repeated unnecessary pain. | Statute | |
| Missouri v. Holland | 40 S.Ct. 382 (1920) | 252 U.S. 416 (1920) |
This was a bill in equity brought by the State of Missouri to prevent a game warden of the United States from attempting to enforce the Migratory Bird Treaty Act of July 3, 1918, c. 128, 40 Stat. 755, and the regulations made by the Secretary of Agriculture in pursuance of the same. The ground of the bill is that the statute is an unconstitutional interference with the rights reserved to the States by the Tenth Amendment. While the court recognized the states' province to act in traditional matters of fish and game, the migratory nature of wild birds makes them the proper subject of treaty. As noted by the Court, "[t]he subject matter is only transitorily within the State and has no permanent habitat therein." The Court found the treaty was a proper exercise of constitutional authority where a national interest was implicated (i.e., "the protectors of our forests and our crops") and could only be protected by national action in concert with another power. |
Case | |
| IN - Cow Slaughter - THE HARYANA GAUVANSH SANRAKSHAN AND GAUMSAMVARDHAN ACT, 2015 | 20 of 2015 | The Act, specific to the North Indian state of Haryana, prohibits cow slaughter. A cow may be slaughtered only under certain conditions, and a person slaughtering a cow under these conditions must obtain a certificate from a registered veterinary practitioner. Cows cannot be exported for slaughter. Persons may not sell, store, keep or transport beef or beef products. The Act provides for the creation of a scheme or project for the conservation of indigenous breeds of cow. The Government must establish and maintain institutions to look after infirm, stray and 'uneconomic' cows. An offence under this Act carried with it imprisonment and fines. | Statute | ||
| AR - Sherwood - Breed - Pit Bull Ordinance No. 1776 | SHERWOOD, AR., CITY ORDINANCE No. 1776 (2008) |
In Sherwood, Arkansas, it is unlawful to keep, harbor, own or possess any pit bull dog, with the exception for those who are registered and reside in an area that is annexed into corporate city limits. However, if a pit bull is aggressive towards people or other dogs, the dog is not exempt from the ban. Registration requirements include: annual vaccinations, license, microchips, photo ID, insurance, proper confinement, 'Beware of Dog' signs, and mandatory disclosures. Any dog found to be the subject of a violation shall be subject to immediate seizure and impoundment or may be euthanized. The owner may be fined up to $1,000 and imprisoned for up to 30 days.
|
Local Ordinance |