United States
Displaying 1571 - 1580 of 4789
Title |
Summary |
|---|---|
| HI - Lien - § 507-1. Animals, lien for care of | Whoever pastures, feeds, or shelters animals by virtue of a contract with or by the consent of the owner of the animals for a compensation agreed upon, has a lien on the animals for pasturing, feeding, or sheltering to secure payment thereof with costs. |
| HI - Research - [§ 321-30.4]. Cosmetics; animal testing; prohibition | This Hawaii law from 2021 makes it unlawful for a manufacturer to import for profit, sell, or offer for sale in the State any cosmetic for which the manufacturer knew or reasonably should have known that an animal test was conducted or contracted, by or on behalf of the manufacturer or any supplier of the manufacturer, on or after January 1, 2022, in a cruel manner, as identified in section 711-1108.5(1)(a). A violation of this section shall be punishable by a fine of $5,000 and an additional $1,000 for each day the violation continues. Certain exceptions to the testing ban exist under this act. |
| HI - Shark fins; prohibited - Chapter 188. Fishing Rights and Regulations. | Hawaii passed this law in 2010 prohibiting the sale, trade, or distribution of shark fins. Prior to July 1, 2011, any restaurant holding a valid certificate, permit, or license issued by the department of health may possess, sell, offer for sale, trade, or distribute shark fins possessed by that restaurant as of July 1, 2010 which are prepared for consumption. Any person violating this section or any rule adopted pursuant to this section incurs an administrative fine of not less than $5,000 and not more than $15,000 for first offense. The fine then increases to $15,000 - $35,000 for a second offense, and $35,000 - 50,000 or imprisonment for up to 1 year, or both, for a third or subsequent offense. |
| HI - Therapy animals - [§ 323-51]. Animal therapy | This Hawaii law allows common household pets to be brought into long term health care facilities for the purpose of visiting patients. The institution can determine the rules for visitation. It also may require the animal owner o produce written documentation from a veterinarian attesting to the animal's good health. |
| HI - Trusts for domestic or pet animals. - [§ 554D-408]. Trust for care of animal | This statute represents Hawaii's pet trust law (note: this new section replaces former H.R.S. § 560:7-501). A trust for the care of one or more designated domestic or pet animals shall be valid. The trust terminates when no living animal is covered by the trust. A governing instrument shall be liberally construed to bring the transfer within this section, to presume against the precatory or honorary nature of its disposition, and to carry out the general intent of the transferor. Extrinsic evidence shall be admissible in determining the transferor's intent. |
| HI - Vehicle - § 291C-124. Obstruction to driver's view or driving mechanism | This Hawaii law states that no person shall hold in his or her lap or allow to be in the driver's immediate area any animal that interferes with the "driver's control over the driving mechanism of the vehicle." |
| HI - Veterinary - CHAPTER 471. VETERINARY MEDICINE. | These are the state's veterinary practice laws. Among the provisions include licensing requirements, laws concerning the state veterinary board, veterinary records laws, and the laws governing disciplinary actions for impaired or incompetent practitioners. |
| HI - Wildlife - Chapter 124. Indigenous Wildlife, Endangered and Threatened Wildlife, and Introduced Wild Birds | The purpose of this chapter is to conserve, manage, protect, and enhance indigenous wildlife; and manage introduced wild birds. |
| HI - Wildlife - Chapter 183D. Wildlife. | These statutes comprise Hawaii's wildlife provisions. |
| Hill v. Coggins | In 2013, Plaintiffs visited Defendants' zoo, the Cherokee Bear Zoo, in North Carolina where they observed four bears advertised as grizzly bears in what appeared to Plaintiffs as substandard conditions. As a result, Plaintiffs filed a citizen suit in federal district court alleging the Zoo's practice of keeping the bears was a taking of a threatened species under the federal Endangered Species Act (ESA). In essence, Plaintiffs contend the Zoo's conduct was a form of harassment under the ESA, and so they sought injunctive relief. After denying the Zoo's motions for summary judgment, the district court held a bench trial where the court ruled against Plaintiffs on the issue of the Zoo's liability under the ESA. The manner in which the bears were kept did not constitute a taking for purposes of the ESA. On appeal to the Fourth Circuit, this Court first found Plaintiffs established Article III standing for an aesthetic injury. Second, the Court agreed with the district court that evidence showed these bears were grizzly bears. While the Defendant-Zoo's veterinarian testified at trial that they are European brown bears, the collective evidence including expert testimony, veterinary records, USDA reports, and the Zoo's own advertising justified the lower court's conclusion that the bears are threatened grizzly bears. As to the unlawful taking under the ESA, the Fourth Circuit vacated the lower court's holding and remanded the case to district court. The legal analysis used by the court was incorrect because the court did not first determine whether the Zoo's practices were "generally accepted" before it applied the exclusion from the definition of harassment. The lower court based its conclusion on the fact that the Zoo met applicable minimum standards under the Animal Welfare Act (AWA) and did not explore whether these standards were "generally accepted." Affirmed in part, vacated and remanded. |