Results

Displaying 1 - 10 of 5977
Title Citation Alternate Citation Agency Citation Summary Type
AL - Stock Laws - Article 2. Taking Up and Disposition of Animals Running at Large on State and Federal Aid Highways. Ala. Code 1975 § 3-2-1 - § 3-5-1 - 14 AL ST § 3-2-1 - § 3-5-1 - 14

This set of Alabama laws concerns estrays (livestock running at large), the taking up of animals running on the highway, fencing requirements, and stock laws.

Statute
Animals Used in Entertainment

Animals in Film

Circuses and the Laws Governing Them

Elephants and Ivory

 

Policy
VA - Cruelty - Consolidated Cruelty Statutes Va. Code Ann. §§ 3.2-6500 - 6590; Va. Code Ann. § 18.2-361; § 18.2-144.1

These Virginia statutes set forth Title 3.2, the Comprehensive Animal Care laws, which include the state's anti-cruelty and animal fighting provisions. For the purposes of § 3.2-6570, the operative animal cruelty law, animal means any nonhuman vertebrate species including fish except those fish captured and killed or disposed of in a reasonable and customary manner. The section has a misdemeanor animal cruelty law as well as a felony provision related to torture or willful infliction of cruelty. The section requires companion animal owners to provide adequate care.

Statute
CA - Horse slaughter - § 598d. Sale of horsemeat for human consumption West's Ann. Cal. Penal Code § 598d CA PENAL § 598d

This statute prohibits the sale of horsemeat for human consumption. No  restaurant, cafe, or other public eating place may offer horsemeat for sale for human consumption. A first time violation is a misdemeanor.

Statute
CR - Veterinary - General Law on the National Service of Animal Health (Law 8495) No. 8495

The law that organizes the Veterinary Official Service of Costa Rica (SENASA), the government institution that is responsible for animal welfare and many other aspects related to animal production and the protection of human and animal health.

Statute
Park Management Corp v. In Defense of Animals --- Cal.Rptr.3d ----, 2019 WL 2539295 (Cal. Ct. App. June 20, 2019) An animal rights activist named Joseph Cuviello appealed the entry of a permanent injunction in a trespass action that prohibited him from demonstrating outside of Six Flags Discovery Kingdom ("The Park") in California. The superior court rejected Cuviello’s federal and state constitutional claims that he had a right to picket there peacefully and his common law defense based on a claimed prescriptive easement. The Park was originally municipally owned and privately operated until 2007 when the Park's management acquired the park from the City of Vallejo. After that acquisition, the Park began to limit free speech until it ultimately banned all expressive activity on the property. Cuviello was one of the many people that protested at the park advocating for animals and he had done so many times in the past. The Park filed a single cause of action for private trespass against several animal advocacy groups. Cuviello argued that he had a First Amendment right to protest there because the park had been dedicated to public use, the park was a public forum under state constitutional law, and given the amount of times he had protested at the park in the past, he had acquired a common law prescriptive easement right to protest there. The trial court denied Cuviello’s cross-motion for summary judgment and granted summary judgment for the Park. It ruled that the First Amendment does not apply to private property and that the property was not a public forum under California’s constitution. It also rejected the prescriptive easement claims. Although the Park was zoned as a public and quasi-public property, the Appeals Court grappled with whether to classify the Park as a private or public forum. The Court applied a balancing test which balanced society’s interest in free expression against the Park’s interests as a private property owner. The Court concluded that the unticketed, exterior portions of the Park was a public forum. Ultimately the Court held that the trial court erred in granting the Park’s summary judgment and in denying Cuviello’s cross-motion for summary judgment. Accordingly, the Court reversed the decision of the trial court and held that on the undisputed facts here, the Park may not ban expressive activity in the non-ticketed, exterior areas of Six Flags. Case
OK - Rehabilitation, wildlife - Chapter 25 Wildlife Rules OK ADC 800:25-38-1 to 12 Okla. Admin. Code 800:25-38-1 to 12

The following Oklahoma regulations detail that a license is needed for any person who wishes to rehabilitate wildlife. A person must renew this license annually for a fee of ten (10) dollars unless that person has violated any of  these provisions or was found not to be taking proper care of the animal during the animal's rehabilitation. In such a case, a person must wait a minimum of one year before that person can renew his or her license. These regulations also relieve the Department of Wildlife from liability and costs incurred by the licensee. Additionally, these regulations require a licensee to report  any listed endangered or threatened species; require a record of veterinary visits; require a record of the type of species lodged at the facility; require proper facilities; and require proper release of rehabilitated animals and proper disposal of animals that cannot be rehabilitated.

Administrative
Terrence Ing v. American Airlines, a corporation doing business in the State of California; and DOES 1 through 20, inclusive

This California complaint arose from the death of plaintiff's dog while in American Airlines' care. The dog flew from New York to San Francisco in the cargo area. Upon arrival, the dog was alive, but in physical distress. Plaintiff raised eleven causes of action, including gross negligence, conversion, and intentional infliction of emotional distress, among others.

Pleading
WY - Trust - § 4-10-409. Trust for care of animal W. S. 1977 § 4-10-409 WY ST § 4-10-409

This statute represents Wyoming's pet trust law.  The law provides that a trust may be created to provide for the care of an animal alive during the settlor's lifetime. The trust terminates upon the death of the last animal named in the trust.

Statute
SD - Endangered Species - Chapter 34A-8. Endangered and Threatened Species S D C L § 34A-8-1 - 13; 34A-8A-1 - 9 SD ST 34A-8A-1 to 13; 34A-8-1 - 9

These South Dakota statutes provide the definitions and regulations related to endangered and threatened species in the state.  Under statute, state agencies shall establish and conduct control programs at state expense on private lands that are encroached upon by prairie dogs from contiguous public lands.  It is a misdemeanor to take, possess, transport, import, export, process, sell or offer for sale, buy or offer to buy (nor may a common or contract carrier transport or receive for shipment) a listed species as defined by statute.

Statute

Pages