Results

Displaying 41 - 50 of 111
Title Citation Alternate Citation Summary Type
AU - Livestock - Australian Meat and Live-stock Industry Act 1997 Act No. 206 of 1997

The purpose of this Act is to control meat and live-stock exports both within and outside Australia. 'Live-stock' includes cattle, calves, sheep, lambs and goats, however this definition is not exhaustive and may include other animals if prescribed. The Act covers export licences, quotas and enforcement. It also outlines the role of industry bodies and policies.

Statute
Inst. of Cetacean Research v. Sea Shepherd Conservation Soc. 725 F.3d 940 (9th Cir. 2013) 2013 A.M.C. 169513, Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 52422013, Daily Journal D.A.R. 6656 After the Institute was denied an injunction in the trial court, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals issued an injunction preventing Sea Shepherd from attacking any of the Institute’s vessels in any way and from coming within 500 yards of any Institute vessel operating in the open sea. Case
Adams v Reahy [2007] NSWSC 1276

The first respondent claimed that despite their best efforts their dog was unable to gain weight and appeared emaciated. When proceedings were instituted, the first respondent was successful in being granted a permanent stay as the appellant, the RSPCA, failed to grant the first respondent access to the dog to determine its current state of health. On appeal, it was determined that a permanent stay was an inappropriate remedy and that the first respondent should be granted a temporary stay only until the dog could be examined.

Case
Anderson v Moore [2007] WASC 135

The appellant ignored advice to make available reasonable amounts of food to feed sheep. The appellant claimed to be acting under veterinary advice and further that the trial judge erred in taking into account the subjectivity of the appellant's actions. All claims were dismissed.

Case
Daniele v Weissenberger 2002 WL 31813949,136 A Crim R 390 2002 WASCA 346

Court uphold conviction for failure to provide food and water for horses. Even thought not the owner, he was the responsible party. Sentence of $3,000 fine and suspended 3 month was not excessive.

Case
Joyce v Visser [2001] TASSC 116

The appellant was convicted of failing to provide food and water to dogs who were chained to a spot. Citing the extreme nature of the neglect and the need for general deterrence, the trial judge sentenced the appellant to three months' imprisonment. On appeal, the appellate judge found the sentence to be manifestly excessive and reduced the sentence.

Case
AU - Conservation and Land Management Act 1984 (WA) Conservation and Land Management Act 1984

An Act to make better provision for the use, protection and management of certain public lands and waters and the flora and fauna thereof, to establish authorities to be responsible therefor, and for incidental or connected purposes.

Statute
Australia - Kangaroos - Shooting for Commerical Purposes The National Code of Practice for the Humane Shooting of Kangaroos and Wallabies for Commercial Purposes sets an achievable standard of humane conduct and is the minimum required of persons shooting kangaroos and wallabies. It has been produced to ensure that all persons intending to shoot free-living kangaroos or wallabies for commercial purposes undertake the shooting so that the animal is killed in a way that minimises pain and suffering. Statute
AU - Parks - National Parks and Wildlife Act 1972 (SA) National Parks and Wildlife Act 1972

An Act to provide for the establishment and management of reserves for public benefit and enjoyment; to provide for the conservation of wildlife in a natural environment; and for other purposes.

Statute
Inst. of Cetacean Research v. Sea Shepherd Conservation Soc'y 2014 WL 3579639 (W.D. Wash. July 21, 2014) After the International Court of Justice ruled against Japan in the Whaling in the Antarctic case, Sea Shepherd moved to dismiss the Ninth Circuit’s earlier ruling regarding Sea Shepherd’s own actions in the Antarctic. Sea Shepherd claimed that because the Institute had announced that it would not engage in whaling in the 2014-15 season, its claim was moot. This argument, though, ignored the fact the Institute also stated that it plans to resume whaling in the future, leading the Court to dismiss the motion. Case

Pages