Results
| Title | Citation | Alternate Citation | Summary | Type |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| GA - Deer Hunting - § 27-5-12. Unlawful to kill or wound farmed deer or wild animal held | Ga. Code Ann., § 27-5-12 | GA ST 27-5-12 | Under this Georgia statute, it is unlawful to shoot, kill, or wound any wild animal held under a wild animal license or permit or any farmed deer for enjoyment, gain, amusement, or sport. | Statute |
| CA - Testing, animal - Chapter 2. Deposit for Keeping. Article 1. General Provisions. | West's Ann. Cal. Civ. Code § 1833 - 1840 | CA CIVIL § 1833 - 1840 | The following statutes requires that a research facility which houses living animals shall provide said animals with veterinary care, food, housing, and treat each animal with kindness. Any violation of the statute could result in civil liability. In addition, the statutes provide that an alternative testing method must be utilized when scientifically validated, recommended by the ICCVAM, and adopted by the appropriate federal agency. A new section from 2020 prohibits a manufacturer from importing for profit, selling, or offering for sale in this state, any cosmetic, if the cosmetic was developed or manufactured using an animal test that was conducted or contracted by the manufacturer, or any supplier of the manufacturer, on or after January 1, 2020. | Statute |
| Pulaski v. Chrisman | 2005 WL 81919 (Cal. 2005) |
Residents of a mobile home park attempted to get injunction preventing the conversion of their mobile home park into a community campground. Plaintiffs claimed violation of the Endangered Species Act due to the possible removal of endangered species during the renovation. The court held it did not have jurisdiction to entertain part of plaintiffs Endangered Species claim because of a procedural violation and that plaintiffs failed to show violation of the Endangered Species Act was likely on the remainder of their claims. |
Case | |
| Decision Shrimp Farm in Cayapas Natural Reserve - Ecuador - Do not publish yet | CAUSA No. 0507-12-EP | Case | ||
| Chile - Slaughter - Ley 21.3016 | Ley 21.3016 | This law modifies Law No. 19.162, increasing sanctions for violations of animal health regulations in slaughterhouses, and information falsification in the livestock and meat traceability system. This law increases monetary fees from 100 monthly tax units (UTM) to 500 UTM. In addition it adds a paragraph to artiicle 8 of Law No. 19.162 stating the following: "The person who, in an export process, incurs violations of this law related to animal health or traceability will be sanctioned with a fine of 100 to 1,000 monthly tax units and with the confiscation of the products. Additionally, they will be sanctioned with the prohibition of export between three to five years. In case of recidivism within the five years following the end of the prohibition, the conduct will be sanctioned with the perpetual prohibition to export. In the case of a legal person, the same sanction will fall on the natural person or persons controlling the said company and the other companies they control." | Statute | |
| OK - Police and Dogs - § 36.1. Police dog handlers--Civil liability | 22 Okl.St.Ann. § 36.1 | OK ST T. 22 § 36.1 | This Oklahoma statute deals with the civil liability of police dog handlers. Under the statute, a police dog handler who uses a dog in the line of duty in accordance with the policies and standards established by the law enforcement agency that employs the officer, will not be civilly liable for any damages arising from the use of the dog. The police dog handler may only be liable for exceptions listed in the Governmental Tort Claims Act. | Statute |
| Revista Brasileira de Direito Animal Volume 17 |
TABLE OF CONTENTS EDITORIAL /FOREWORDS Heron Santana Gordilho ……………………………………………….9 Doutrina Internacional/International Articles |
Policy | ||
| CT - Domestic Violence - § 46b-15. Relief from physical abuse by family | C.G.S.A. § 46b-15 | CT ST § 46b-15 | Under this Connecticut law, any family or household member who has been subjected to a continuous threat of present physical pain or physical injury by another family may apply to the Superior Court for an order of protection . Under subsection (b), The court may also make orders for the protection of any animal owned or kept by the applicant including, but not limited to, an order enjoining the respondent from injuring or threatening to injure such animal. | Statute |
| U.S. v. Hardman (On Rehearing En Banc) | 2002 WL 1790584 (only Westlaw citation currently available) |
The Hardman and Wilgus cases are remanded for factfinding where the record was limited as to whether the government employed the least restrictive means to support its compelling interests of protecting eagles and Native American culture. On the Saenz motion for return of eagle feathers to a non-federally recognized Indian religious practitioner, the court holds that the government failed to support its assertions that opening the permit system to all adherents of Indian religions would compromise the eagle population or destroy federal trust obligations to Native American tribes/culture. For discussion of the BGEPA and religious challenges, see Detailed Discussion . |
Case | |
| UK - Farming - UK Welfare of Farmed Animals (Amend.) | Statutory Instrument 2002 No. 1646 |
For historical purposes only. Law has been repealed and/or replaced. These Regulations may be cited as the Welfare of Farmed Animals (England) (Amendment) Regulations 2002. The provisions mainly concern egg-laying hens. |
Statute |