Results
| Title | Citation | Alternate Citation | Agency Citation | Summary | Type |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| CA - Cruelty - § 597.4. Selling or giving away live animals on any street, highway, | West's Ann. Cal. Penal Code § 597.4 | CA PENAL § 597.4 | This California statute makes is unlawful (with exceptions) to sell or give away, as part of a commercial transaction, a live animal on any street, highway, public right-of-way, parking lot, carnival, or boardwalk. The first violation is an infraction punishable by a fine up to $250. However, if the animal suffers, is injured, or its life or health is endangered, then the person is guilty of a misdemeanor. | Statute | |
| AU - Wildlife - Wildlife Act 1975 (VIC) | Wildlife Act 1975 |
The purposes of this Act are to establish procedures in order to promote: the protection and conservation of wildlife; the prevention of taxa of wildlife from becoming extinct; the sustainable use of and access to wildlife; and to prohibit and regulate the conduct of persons engaged in activities concerning or related to wildlife |
Statute | ||
| In re: PATRICK D. HOCTOR | 54 Agric. Dec. 114 (1995) | 1995 WL 321500 (U.S.D.A.) |
Sanction in each case is to be determined by examining nature of violations in relation to remedial purposes of regulatory statute involved, along with all relevant circumstances, giving appropriate weight to recommendations of administrative officials having responsibility for achieving congressional purpose. |
Case | |
| U.S. v. Friday | 525 F.3d 938 (10th Cir., 2008) | 2008 WL 1971504 (C.A.10 (Wyo.)) |
The Defendant, a member of the Northern Arapaho Tribe of Wyoming, was charged with violating the Eagle Act after he illegally shot a bald eagle for an important religious ritual. The Defendant claimed that prosecution was prevented by the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA). Friday claimed that the government failed to protect eagles killed when they strike power lines. The Court of Appeals held that the permitting process did not facially violate the RFRA and any difference in government's treatment of Native Americans taking eagles for religious purposes and power companies whose power lines killed eagles did not indicate that government failed to protect eagles in least restrictive manner. |
Case | |
| Animal Law in Latin America |
Animal Law in Latin America |
Policy | |||
| Jay Hedge Grievance Statement to Augusta University | This document comprises Dr. Jay Hedge's Grievance Statement to Augusta University concerning the death of a laboratory monkey Named "Ovechkin" at Augusta University Augusta, Georgia. | Policy | |||
| US - Petitions - AWI Consolidated Petitions | Submitted by Animal Welfare Institute | The following is a list of petitions submitted by the Animal Welfare Institute (AWI) and other advocacy groups to United States agencies. These petitions seek changes to rule-making for various animal welfare issues and also seek designations under the federal Endangered Species Act. The provided links for each action give a summary and links to the actual filed petitions. The petitions are listed with the most recent one filed at the top of the page. | Administrative | ||
| Ramapo v. Hi-Tor Animal Care Center, Inc. | Judgment 10050423 (2010) | This court was asked to determine whether a dog shoul be declared dangerous pursuant to section 108 (24) (a) of the Agriculture and Markets Law. The case is unusual in one aspect as the respondent is an animal shelter and the alleged victim is an animal control officer from another township. The Justice Court found the shelter dog was not 'Dangerous' pursuant to Agriculture and Markets Law. Interestingly, the court found the reasonable person standard in the statute to be problematic and in need of legislative amendment restoring in appropriate language the consideration of evidence of vicious propensity. | Case | ||
| AK - Dogs - Title 3. Agriculture and Animals. Chapter 55. Dogs. | AS § 03.55.010 - 070, § 11.56.705 - 715; § 44.09.140 | AK ST § 03.55.010 - 070, § 11.56.705 - 715; § 44.09.140 | This collection reflects Alaska's dog laws. The primary dog laws give permission to kill dangerous dogs that are running at large or those that are chasing livestock. It also defines a dangerous dog - "Any dog which when unprovoked has ever bitten or attacked a human being is considered vicious . . ." Notably, "[a]ny person may lawfully kill any vicious or mad dog running at large." This section also allows a village council of an unincorporated village to destroy loose dogs in the village or otherwise control dogs to the extent authorized first class cities. Other laws concern the state dog and harming police dogs. | Statute | |
| Ronald Hane and Laurie Simerson, plaintiffs v. Maurice James and Mary James, defendants |
This is a copy of a Washington arbitration award that awarded general and special damages. |
Pleading |
