Results
| Title | Citation | Alternate Citation | Agency Citation | Summary | Type |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Ley de Protección Animal del Estado de Querétaro | Ley de Protección Animal del Estado de Querétaro | This law seeks to guarantee dignified and respectful treatment for all animal species. As stated in Article 1, its primary objectives include: 1) the regulation of the possession, procreation, development, use, transportation, and slaughter of species, populations, and animal specimens in the state; 2) to implement compliance with the state's environmental policy regarding wildlife and biotic resources; and 3) to promote a culture of protection and respect for nature. | Statute | ||
| Revista Brasileira de Direito Animal Volume 19 |
SUMÁRIOEDITORIALHeron Gordilho……………………………………………… |
Policy | |||
| ID - Endangered Species - Chapter 24. Species Conservation- Chapter 26. Fish and Game | I.C. § 36-2401 - 2405, 36–1101 | ID ST § 36-2401 - 2405, § 36–1101 | This Idaho law sets out the definitions related to state endangered species laws. It also establishes a delisting advisory team that is responsible for reviewing data related to state species proposed for delisting by the federal government. This team also submits management plans to the state fish and wildlife department. | Statute | |
| Banks v. Adair | 251 S.E.2d 88 (Ga.App., 1978) | 148 Ga.App. 254 (Ga.App., 1978) |
In this Georgia dog bite case, plaintiffs appealed a directed verdict for the defendant. The Court of Appeals held that the verdict was properly directed for defendant where there was no evidence that established the defendant's knowledge of his dog's propensity to bite or injure humans.
|
Case | |
| CA - Euthanasia - § 597u. Animals; prohibited killing methods | West's Ann. Cal. Penal Code § 597u | CA PENAL § 597u | This statute prohibits the use by any person of carbon monoxide gas or an intracardiac injection of a euthanasia agent on a conscious animal to kill an animal. | Statute | |
| Supreme Beef Processors, Inc. v. U.S. Dept. of Agriculture | 275 F.3d 432 (C.A.5 (Tex.),2001) | 51 Fed.R.Serv.3d 1445 (2001) |
The Fifth Circuit United States Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's decision that the Federal Meat Inspection Act focuses on the processes used by a manufacturer and not the product itself, and that the presence of Salmonella bacteria in the meat does not necessarily make a product "adulterated" because the act of the cooking meat normally destroys the bacteria. |
Case | |
| WA - Restaurant - 246-215-06570. Methods - Prohibiting animals (FDA Food Code 6-501.115) | WA ADC 246-215-06570 | WAC 246-215-06570 | This Washington regulation generally prohibits live animals on the premises of a food establishment. However, subsection (4) now allows dogs to be present in the outdoor area of such premises if certain conditions are met. These include the permit holder (the food establishment) possessing an approved plan allowing dogs in its outdoor premises. Dogs must be on a leash and under control of their handlers. Dogs must not go through the interior of the food establishment and must not go on tables, chairs, or other fixtures. If the food establishment provides containers for food or drink for the dogs, those containers must not be washed in the food establishment. Food employees must not have contact with the dogs and the area musts be maintained so that it is clean of animal waste. Adequate signage must notify patrons of the facility's decision to allow dogs. | Administrative | |
| US - Meat Inspection - Labeling (Historical) | 9 C.F.R. 317 | These former Federal Meat Inspection Act regulations detail the law surrounding labeling, marking, and containing packaged food prior to 2014. Read an Animal Welfare Institute petition to amend section 317.4 of labeling regulations under the Federal Meat Inspection Act (FMIA). The new regulations went into effect in 2014. | Administrative | ||
| US - Trade - Tariff Act of 1930 | 19 USCA § 1481 | This federal law outlines the requirements for importation invoices. | Statute | ||
| U.S. v. 3,210 crusted sides of Caiman crocodilus yacare | 636 F.Supp. 1281 (S.D. Fla. 1986) |
The plaintiff, the United States of America, seeks forfeiture of the defendant, 10,870 crusted sides of Caiman crocodilus yacare, an endangered species of wildlife (hides) transported from Bolivia to the U.S. in violation of the Lacey Act, among other statutes. The court found that the testimony concerning the shrinkage of the crocodile hides during tanning did not meet the buren of the claimed owners showing by a preponderance of the evidence that the hides, which were shipped from Bolivia under the size limit imposed by Bolivian law, were not subject to the forfeiture provisions of the Lacey Act, 16 U.S.C. § 3374(a)(1) (1985). The provision of the Lacey Act at issue prohibits the interstate or foreign commerce of any wildlife taken in violation of any foreign law. |
Case |