United States

Displaying 2691 - 2700 of 4789
Titlesort descending Summary
Never Enough: Animal Hoarding Law ABSTRACT

Animal hoarding, a disorder that causes sufferers to acquire animals compulsively despite the inability or unwillingness to provide them with adequate care, is a widespread, costly, often underestimated problem that causes more animal suffering than all acts of intentional cruelty combined. Not only are animals harmed, but humans are as well, from dependents that live with hoarders to members of the surrounding communities to the hoarders themselves. Current laws do not address the issue effectively, and recidivism rates are close to 100%. This Article seeks to increase awareness of the animal hoarding problem and offers suggestions as to how the law might evolve to better manage and resolve these complex cases.
New England Anti-Vivisection Society v. United States Fish and Wildlife Service and Yerkes National Primate Research Center New England Anti-Vivisection Society (NEAVS), a non-profit organization that dedicates itself to animal-welfare, brought suit against the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) for issuing an export permit to Yerkes National Primate Research Center (Yerkes). NEAVS filed suit against FWS arguing that FWS had violated the Endangered Species Act, the Administrative Procedure Act, the National Environmental Policy Act, and the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species. NEAVS argued that FWS had violated the acts by allowing Yerkes to export chimpanzees in exchange for making a financial donation that would be put towards a program to help with “habitat destruction and disease, which face wild chimpanzees in East Africa.” The court reviewed the case and determined that it did not have subject-matter jurisdiction to address the claims made by NEAVS. The court found that NEAVS was not able to establish standing under Article III of the Constitution because NEAVS had not “suffered an injury in fact.” Ultimately, the court held that NEAVS was unable to show that it had a “concrete and particularized injury in fact that is actual or imminent” and that is “traceable” to FWS’ actions. As a result, the court granted summary judgment in favor of FWS.
New Hampshire General Laws 1878: Trespasses, Malicious Acts, etc. The New Hampshire session laws from 1878, chapter 281, covers the state's cruelty to animals laws. Specifically, the law covers cruelty to animals and the treatment of animals during transportation.
New Hampshire Ins. Co. v. Farmer Boy AG, Inc.


Lightning struck a hog breeding facility, which disabled the ventilation system and killed pregnant sows. Plaintiff Insurance Company sued defendant for damages. The Court held that evidence of damages relating to the lost litters and subsequent generations was excluded because damages for future unborn litters are not recoverable when damages are recovered for the injury to or destruction of the pregnant sows.
New Hampshire Revised Statutes 1843: Offences Against Chastity, Decency and Morality Section 12 of Chapter 219 from New Hampshire Revised Statutes of 1843 covers cruelty to animals. Specifically, the statutes states what qualifies as cruelty to animals and the punishment for it.
New Jersey Revision of Statutes 1709-1877: Chapter XII Supplement: An act for the prevention of cruelty to animals. A supplement to the New Jersey Revision of Statutes for 1877. The supplement covered standing for officer's of New Jersey Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals. In addition, the supplement addresses the question of jurisdiction for the enforcement the anti-cruelty laws.
New Jersey Revision of Statutes 1709-1877: Chapter XII: An act for the prevention of cruelty to animals. A compilation of the New Jersey anti-cruelty laws as of 1877. The laws covered include treatment of animals, penalties, and exceptions for scientific experiments.
New Jersey Soc. for Prevention of Cruelty to Animals v. New Jersey Dept. of Agriculture


This New Jersey case concerns several challenges to the adoption of livestock regulations by the state Department of Agriculture.

 

Specifically, several animal welfare groups contended that several of the regulations were inhumane and in violation of the state’s legislative mandate to issue humane livestock standards. The Superior Court of New Jersey, appellate division, agreed with the Department, holding that

the challenged regulations are consistent with the agency's legislative mandate, and are neither arbitrary, nor unreasonable.


This Judgment was Affirmed in Part, Reversed in Part by New Jersey Soc. for Prevention of Cruelty to Animals v. New Jersey Dept. of Agriculture, 196 N.J. 366,955 A.2d 886 (N.J., 2008).
New Jersey Soc. for Prevention of Cruelty to Animals v. New Jersey Dept. of Agriculture


The issue in the case was whether the regulations promulgated by the NJDA pursuant to this authority were invalid for failing to comply with the “humane” standards requirement. Although the court held that the regulations in their entirety were not invalid, the court found that NJDA acted arbitrarily and capriciously in enacting its regulations by allowing all “routine husbandry practices,” as there was no evidence that those practices were “humane.” The court further rejected NJDA regulations allowing cattle tail docking, finding no evidence to support that the practices were “humane.” Finally, the court rejected the assertion of NJDA that certain controversial farm practices, such as castration, de-beaking, and toe-trimming, are “humane” if they are performed by a “knowledgeable individual” “in a way to minimize pain.”
New Jersey Society for Prevention of Cruelty to Animals v. Board of Education


In this action, the New Jersey Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, sought recovery against the Board of Education of the City of East Orange of penalties of the rate of $100 per alleged violation arising out of cancer-inducing experiments conducted by a student in its high school upon live chickens. By permission of the court, defendants, New Jersey Science Teachers’ Association and National Society for Medical Research Inc. were permitted by the court to participate as amicus curiae. The court found that because the board did not obtain authorization from the health department, an authorization which the health department did not think was needed, it was not thereby barred from performing living animal experimentation. The court concluded that the experiment at issue was not per se needless or unnecessary, and that such experiment did not fall within the ban of N.J. Stat. Ann. § 4:22-26 against needless mutilation, killing, or the infliction of unnecessary cruelty.

Pages