Health

Displaying 31 - 40 of 314
Titlesort ascending Summary
UT - Animal Disease Control - R58. Animal Industry. These are the regulations for Utah's Control of Animal Disease Act. The regulation states, "It is the intent of these rules to eliminate or reduce the spread of diseases among animals by providing standards to be met in the movement of animals within the State of Utah (INTRASTATE) and the importation of animals into the state (INTERSTATE)." Included in the rule are all import requirements for all major livestock species as well as dogs, cats, and ferrets. The rule also covers exotic animals, zoological animals, and wildlife (section 18).
UT - Agriculture - Title 4 Utah Agriculture Code The following statutes detail penalities for violating of the agricultural code. They also contain animal disease control provisions and detail the organization of the Department of Agriculture and Food.
US - Slaughter - Prohibition of the Use of Specified Risk Materials for Human Food


The Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) is affirming, with changes, the interim final rule "Prohibition of the Use of Specified Risk Materials for Human Food and Requirements for the Disposition of Non-Ambulatory Cattle," which was published in the Federal Register on January 12, 2004. The Agency is also affirming the interim final rule "Prohibition of the Use of Certain Stunning Devices Used to Immobilize Cattle During Slaughter," also published on January 12, 2004. FSIS issued these interim final rules in response to the confirmation on December 23, 2003, of bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE) in an imported dairy cow in Washington State. FSIS is taking this action to make permanent interim measures implemented by the Agency to minimize human exposure to cattle materials that could potentially contain the BSE agent.
US - Slaughter - Ante Mortem Inspection
Uganda - Cruelty - Chapter 220 Animal Act
U.S. ex rel. Haight v. Catholic Healthcare West


The plaintiffs, In Defense of Animals and Patricia Haight brought suit against the defendants, Michael Berens, the principal research investigator of the study in question, and the Barrow Neurological Institute, St. Joseph’s Hospital and Medical Center, Catholic Healthcare West Arizona, and Catholic Healthcare West, his employers, under the False Claims Act.  In 1997, defendant Michael Berens, Ph.D., submitted a grant application to the NIH in which he sought federal funding for a project to develop a canine model to study glioma, a form of human brain cancer, and attempted to

create a process for implanting gliomas in the brains of beagles. The plaintiffs brought suit against Dr. Berens under the False Claims Act asserting that he had lied in his grant application in order to obtain NIH funding. The district court granted summary judgment to the defendants, holding that the plaintiffs failed to produce sufficient evidence from which a reasonable jury could find that the challenged grant application statements were objectively false.

 

In response, the plaintiffs filed a notice to appeal 51 days later, relying on a circuit court precedent allowing plaintiffs 60 days to file a notice of appeal in these types of cases.

 

However, an intervening Supreme Court decision declared that plaintiffs have only 30 days to file a notice to appeal in this type of case.

 

This case was amended and superseded by


US ex rel Haight v. Catholic Healthcare West

, 602 F.3d 949 (9th Cir., 2010).
TX - Restaurant - § 437.025. Requirements for Dogs in Outdoor Dining Areas; Municipal Preemption This Texas law from 2019 allows food establishments to permit customers to have dogs in outdoor dining areas under certain conditions. Among other things, the restaurant must post a conspicuous sign informing patrons that dogs are permitted, create access so dogs do not enter the interior of the restaurant, require customers to keep dogs on leashes and off tables and chairs, and make sure there is no food preparation in the dog-friendly dining area. A municipality may not adopt or enforce an ordinance, rule, or similar measure that imposes a requirement on a food service establishment for a dog in an outdoor dining area that is more stringent than the requirements listed in the statute.
TX - Registration - Subchapter C: Regulation of Dogs Chapter 822, Sections .031 through .035 address the regulation of dogs. Specifically, these provisions cover the registration requirements, prohibit unregistered dogs from running at large, and enumerate the treatment of dogs that attack other domestic animals.
TX - Rabies control - § 169.22. Definitions This code is the definition section for the Texas Administrative Code's regulations on rabies control.
TX - Rabies - § 826.045. Area Rabies Quarantine. This Texas statute outlines the parameters under which a rabies quarantine area may be adopted. If this occurs, it may call for the restraint of carnivorous animals and the transportation of carnivorous animals into and out of the quarantine area. While the quarantine is in effect, the rules adopted by the board supersede all other applicable ordinances or rules applying to the quarantine area.

Pages