Results
Displaying 61 - 70 of 6637
| Title | Citation | Alternate Citation | Agency Citation | Summary | Type |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| NJ - Livestock - Chapter 8. Humane Treatment of Domestic Livestock. | N.J. Admin. Code tit. 2, § 8-1.1 - 8.7 | NJ ADC 2:8-1.1 - 8.7 | This subchapter establishes humane standards for the humane raising, treatment, care, marketing, and sale of cattle, pursuant to the authority accorded by N.J.S.A. 4:22-16.1. | Administrative | |
| Puppies 'N Love, v. City of Phoenix | 116 F. Supp. 3d 971 (D. Ariz. 2015) | 2015 WL 4532586 (D. Ariz., 2015) | Defendant City of Phoenix passed an ordinance that prohibited pet stores from selling dogs or cats obtained from persons or companies that bred animals; pet stores could only sell animals obtained from animal shelters or rescue organizations. Puppies 'N Love operated a pet store in Phoenix that sold purebred dogs obtained from out-of-state breeders. Puppies 'N Love and its owners sued the City, claiming primarily that the Ordinance violated the dormant Commerce Clause of the United States Constitution by closing the Phoenix market to out-of-state breeders and giving an economic advantage to local breeders. All parties, including Intervenor Humane Society of the United States (“HSUS”), filed motions for summary judgment. The District Court granted the Intervenor’s and the city’s motions, but denied Puppies ‘N Love’s motion, thereby upholding the ordinance. | Case | |
| CA - Rodeos - § 596.7. Rodeos; veterinarians present at performances; violation of section | West's Ann. Cal. Penal Code § 596.7 | CA PENAL § 596.7 | This statute regulating rodeos requires that animals involved have access to veterinary care and mandates treatment of injured rodeo animals. This statute forbids the use of an electric prod once an animal is in the holding chute, unless necessary to protect participants or spectators. Violations of this section are infractions punishable by a fine. | Statute | |
| Animal Legal Defense Fund v. Otter | 44 F. Supp. 3d 1009 (D. Idaho 2014) | 2014 WL 4388158 (D. Idaho, 2014) | In a ‘hold your tongue and challenge now’ First Amendment challenge to an Idaho statute that criminalizes undercover investigations and videography at “agricultural production facilities,” the Animal Legal Defense Fund, as well as various other organizations and individuals, (collectively, “ALDF”), brought suit. The State defendants, Governor Butch Otter and Attorney General Lawrence Wasden, moved to dismiss the ALDF's claims. The claims against the Governor were dismissed under 11th Amendment immunity because the ALDF failed to explain the requisite connection between the Governor and enforcement of section 18–7024. The court also found that since the ALDF failed to allege a concrete plan to violate subsection (e), it lacked standing to challenge section 18–7042(1)(e) and the claim in regards to that provision was therefore dismissed. However, the ALDF’s First Amendment, bare animus Equal Protection, and preemption claims survived the motion to dismiss. | Case | |
| Brazil - Constitutional Provision - Animal | TITLE Vlll, CHAP. VI, ART. 225 |
Article 8 of the Constitution provides for legal concern about animals.(See, VII. of Paragraph 1.) |
Statute | ||
| Coos County Board of County Com'rs v. Kempthorne | 531 F.3d 792 (9th Cir., 2008) | 08 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 7939, 2008 WL 2522202 (C.A.9 (Or.)) | The issue here is whether FWS has an enforceable duty promptly to withdraw a threatened species from the protections of the ESA after a five-year agency review mandated by the Act found that the species does not fit into a protected population category. The species at issue here are murrelets-small, dove-sized birds that feed primarily on sea life and nest in coastal mature and old-growth forests. This Court concluded that Coos County has not alleged a failure to perform a nondiscretionary act or duty imposed by the ESA, whether premised on the petition process deadlines or on the agency's more general duty to act on its own determinations. | Case | |
| Hannah v. State | --- A.3d ----, 2024 WL 885161 (Md. Ct. Spec. App. Mar. 1, 2024) | 2024 WL 885161 (Md.App., 2024) | This case is an appeal of the defendant's conviction on multiple counts of aggravated cruelty to animals, and abuse or neglect of animals. Defendant appeals the felony convictions of aggravated cruelty to animals, arguing that the animal's pain and suffering was caused by neglect rather than any intentional acts. The animals were seized from the defendant's home, where they were found to be lacking food, water, space, and sufficient veterinary care. A veterinarian testified that the animals were underweight, dehydrated, and many had wounds that were not properly treated. Defendant argues that this treatment constitutes abuse or neglect, and that is what the legislature intended to be punished as a misdemeanor. The court considered the use of the word "torture" under the statute, finding that as the actor's conduct is intentional, and results in pain and suffering to the animal, the definition applies. Here, the court finds that there was sufficient evidence that the actions were intentional and resulting in pain and suffering, so the defendant tortured the animals. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the lower court. | Case | |
| Decreto 780 | Decreto 780 | Decreto 780, 2016, establishes standards and regulations for the control of epidemics and zoonotic diseases. Article 2.8.5.2.19 establishes the duty to vaccinate domestic animals in accordance with the legal standards against preventable zoonotic diseases. Article 2.8.5.2.20 prohibits the sale and commercialization of any animals on public roads. This law also prohibits the establishment of breeding facilities in urban areas of domestic, wild, or exotic animals. | Statute | ||
| Cottongame v. State | 2014 WL 3536801 (Tex. App. 2014), unpublished | 2014 WL 3536801 (Tex. App. July 17, 2014), MEMORANDUM OPINION DO NOT PUBLISH Tex.R.App. P. 47.2(b) | Despite an ordinance restricting the number of cats a person can own to three unless a permit was obtained, an officer decided not to enforce the ordinance against the appellant because she was helping with the feral-cat problem in the city and because “she was ... attempting to bring into compliance [her] animal rescue.” When the officer left his job, however, a neighbor complained and an investigation took place. The investigating officer noted everything in the house was covered in cat litter, there was no carpet in the home, and cat urine was on the living-room floor. The smell of cat urine and feces also sickened the officer to the point that he had to leave the house to get fresh air. The State filed a complaint alleging Appellant's violation of the ordinance. A jury found Appellant guilty of the offense as alleged in the complaint and assessed her punishment at $75 plus court costs. Appellant appealed from her conviction for violating a city ordinance regarding the number of animals that may be kept without a permit. In her first issue, the appellant asserted that her conviction violated the Privileges or Immunities Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment because the city “selectively enforced its purported ordinance that prohibits any person from having possession of more than three cats without a permit.” The court, however, found that there was no evidence before the trial court indicating that appellant was singled out for enforcement or that her selection for enforcement was based on anything other than a valid citizen complaint. In her second issue, the appellant argued that the evidence was insufficient to support her conviction. The court, however, found that the evidence was sufficient to support the jury's finding that the appellant was in violation of the ordinance. The lower court’s decision was therefore affirmed. | Case | |
| CA - Spay, neuter - Chapter 7. Spay/Neuter and Breeding Programs for Animals. | West's Ann. Cal. Health & Safety Code § 122330, 122331 | CA HLTH & S § 122330 - 122331 | This California chapter declares that the intent of this legislation is to permit cities and counties to take appropriate action aimed at eliminating uncontrolled and irresponsible breeding of animals. Cities and counties may enact dog breed-specific ordinances pertaining only to mandatory spay or neuter programs and breeding requirements, provided that no specific dog breed, or mixed dog breed, shall be declared potentially dangerous or vicious under those ordinances. These entities must also submit statistical information to the State Public Health Veterinarian on a quarterly basis. | Statute |