Results
Displaying 6041 - 6050 of 6638
| Title | Citation | Alternate Citation | Summary | Type |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| A night monkey in a soiled cage looking out from plastic hideout | Slideshow Images | |||
| Chile - Farm animals - Decreto 29 | Decreto 29 | This "Decreto" or executive order contains the welfare standards in industrial livestock production and commercialization. It is an indirect result of the agreement DS N° 28/2003 between Chile and the European Union together with decretos 28, and 30, 2013. It defines industrial production and confinement. Other important aspects include the prohibition of improperly managing animals, and the requirement to minimize pain and suffering during surgical husbandry procedures such as castration, dehorning/disbudding, tail cropping, beak trimming, etc. | Statute | |
| Creekstone Farms Premium Beef v. United States Department of Agriculture | 517 F.Supp.2d 8 (D.D.C.,2007) | 2007 WL 1020786 (D.D.C.,2007) | Creekstone Farms Premium Beef (Creekstone) sought to independently test their slaughtered cows so they could more safely provide meat to consumers. Creekstone requested testing kits from the USDA, the same kits that USDA inspectors use to test for BSE. The district court ruled that Creekstone could perform the tests. | Case |
| Jackson v. Mateus | 70 P.3d 78 (Utah 2003) | Plaintiff filed suit against the defendant after she was bitten by the defendant’s cat and required medical attention as a result of the bite. Plaintiff found the defendant’s cat on her property and mistakenly started petting the cat, thinking that it was one of her own cats. As plaintiff was petting the cat, it bit her causing her injury. Plaintiff filed a negligence claim against defendant for not restraining the cat. The court held in favor of the defendant because the court found that this incident was not foreseeable and because it was not foreseeable, the defendant did not owe a duty to restrain the animal under the common law, municipal law, or state law. | Case | |
| AZ - Municipalities - Dog Regulations | A.R.S. § 9-240 | AZ ST § 9-240 | This Arizona statute allows common councils to regulate dogs running at large. | Statute |
| Tennant v. Tabor | 89 A.D.3d 1461 (N.Y.A.D. 4 Dept.., 2011) | 2011 WL 5433831 (N.Y.A.D. 4 Dept.); 932 N.Y.S.2d 648 (2011) |
Motorist collided with a horse and sued horse owners for damages. The Supreme Court held that, even if horse owners violated statute requiring them to provide shelter to horse, this did not constitute common-law negligence, which was required for damages. In addition, horse owners were not liable because there was no evidence that horse exhibited propensity to interfere with traffic prior to incident involving motorist. |
Case |
| CT - Leash - Control of dogs in proximity to guide dogs. | C. G. S. A. § 22-364b | CT ST § 22-364b | This Connecticut law provides that the owner or keeper of a dog shall restrain and control such dog on a leash when such dog is not on the property of its owner or keeper and is in proximity to a person with a disability accompanied by a service animal, provided such service animal is readily identifiable as a service animal, is in the direct custody of such person and is licensed. Any person who violates the provisions of this section shall have committed an infraction. If an owner or keeper of a dog violates the provisions of this section and, as a result of such violation, such dog attacks and injures the service animal, such owner or keeper shall be liable for any damage done, including veterinary care, replacement of the service animal, and attorney fees. | Statute |
| UK - Welfare - Protection of Animals (Anaesthetics) Act 1964 | 1964 c. 39 |
For historical purposes only. Law has been repealed and/or replaced. An Act to amend the Protection of Animals (Anaesthetics) Act 1954. |
Statute | |
| Cramer v. Harris | 591 F. App'x 634 (9th Cir. 2015) | Plaintiff William Cramer filed this lawsuit in federal district court to challenge the constitutionality of California’s Proposition 2, which requires California egg farmers to house egg laying hens in less restrictive enclosures. Plaintiff argued that, because Proposition 2 did not specify a minimum cage size for egg laying hens, a reasonable person could not discern whether the enclosures being used were compliant with Proposition 2 and that the law is void for vagueness as a result. The district court dismissed the lawsuit. On appeal, the court reasoned that Proposition 2 did not need to specify a minimum amount of space per bird, and that the space requirements mandating that each hen be able to extend its limbs fully and turn around freely can be discerned using objective criteria. Accordingly, the court of appeals affirmed the judgment of the lower court and dismissed the lawsuit. | Case | |
| MO - Domestic violence - 455.045. Temporary relief available--ex parte orders | V. A. M. S. 455.010, 455.045 | MO ST 455.010, 455.045 | Missouri amended its laws on domestic violence protection orders in 2021 to include the protection of pets. Any ex parte order of protection shall be to protect the petitioner from domestic violence, stalking, or sexual assault and may include "[a] temporary order of possession of pets where appropriate." “Pet” is defined as a living creature maintained by a household member for companionship and not for commercial purposes. | Statute |