Farming or Food Production
Displaying 471 - 480 of 501
Title |
Summary |
|---|---|
| VIVA! International Voice for Animals, et al v. Adidas Promotional Retail Operations, Inc., et al | In this California case, plaintiffs sued defendants for injunctive and declaratory relief, claiming that defendants import the kangaroo leather in violation of section Penal Code section 653o—and thus are committing an unlawful business practice (Bus. & Prof. Code, § 17200 et seq.). Section 653o bans the import of products made from certain animals, including kangaroos into California. Defendants import and sell in California markets athletic shoes made from kangaroo leather. Defendants moved for summary judgment, arguing that section 653o is preempted by federal law under the doctrine of conflict preemption. The trial court agreed and granted the motion. The appellate court also agreed, finding that the statute as applied to defendants in this case conflicts with federal law and with substantial federal objectives of persuading Australian federal and state governments to impose kangaroo population management programs, in exchange for allowing the importation of kangaroo products. The accompanying regulations set forth a comprehensive national policy for the protection of endangered species such as the three kangaroo species involved in this case. Application of section 653o would stand as an obstacle to the accomplishment and execution of the objectives of Congress if applied to the defendants. |
| Viva! v. Adidas |
Viva, an animal protective organization, filed action against Adidas shoe retailer alleging that it was violating a state statute banning the import of products made from Australian kangaroo hide into California. On cross motions for summary judgment, the original court sided with Adidas, on the ground that state statute was preempted by federal Endangered Species Act of 1973. The appeals court affirmed, however the California Superior Court reversed, holding that the state statute was not preempted by federal law. |
| VT - Humane Slaughter - Humane Slaughter of Livestock | These statutes comprise Vermont's humane slaughter provisions. The law requires the humane slaughter of all commercial livestock with a "humane method" defined as a method whereby the animal is rendered insensible to pain by mechanical, electrical, chemical or other means that is rapid and effective before being shackled, hoisted, thrown, cast or cut (with exemptions for religious ritual slaughter). A person who violates this chapter shall be fined not more than $100.00 nor less than $50.00 or imprisoned not more than ninety days, or both, and in addition, the secretary may seek an injunction against a slaughterer. |
| VT - South Burlington - Backyard Chicken Ordinance |
|
| WA - Eggs - Chapter 96.25. Washington Wholesome Eggs and Egg Products Act | This collection of Washington laws prohibits the confinement of egg-laying hens in battery cages and mandates the use of cage-free housing. The laws also ban the sale of eggs in Washington from producers that house egg-laying hens in battery cages. These laws apply to egg producers in the state of Washington and out of state producers. |
| WA - Humane Slaughter - Chapter 16.50. Humane Slaughter of Livestock. | The Washington humane slaughter laws begin with a statement that it is declared to be the policy of the state of Washington to require that the slaughter of all livestock, and the handling of livestock in connection with slaughter, shall be carried out only by humane methods. Humane methods are defined are those methods whereby the animal is rendered insensible to pain by mechanical, electrical, chemical or other means that is rapid and effective, before being shackled, hoisted, thrown, cast or cut; or methods in accordance with the ritual requirements of any religious faith whereby the animal suffers loss of consciousness by anemia of the brain. "Livestock" is limited under the statute to cattle, calves, sheep, swine, horses, mules and goats. Note that the director may, by administrative order, exempt a person from compliance with this chapter for a period of not to exceed six months if he finds that an earlier compliance would cause such person undue hardship. Violation of the act constitutes a misdemeanor and is subject to a fine of not more than two hundred fifty dollars or confinement in the county jail for not more than ninety days. |
| WA - Importation - Chapter 16-54. Animal Importation | This set of regulations is the Washington Department of Agriculture's import requirements for various types of domestic, companion, wild, and exotic animals. |
| WA - Importation - Chapter 16-54. Animal Importation | Washington requires health certificates for the importation of most animals into the state. |
| WA - Initiatives - Initiative Measure No. 1130 (AN ACT Relating to the prevention of farm animal cruelty) | This measure would prohibit confining egg-laying hens, as defined, in stacked cages or cages that prevent hens from turning around freely, lying down, standing up, or fully extending their wings. It would also prohibit selling eggs produced by hens thus confined. Violations would be a gross misdemeanor. The measure would not apply to medical research, veterinary treatment, transportation, certain temporary confinements, exhibitions, or during humane slaughter. The measure would take effect on January 1, 2018. Due to changes in signature requirements announced by the Washington Secretary of State to avoid duplication or error, the initiative did not receive an adequate number of signatures to appear on the ballot. |
| WA - Trespass - CHAPTER 16.04. TRESPASS OF ANIMALS-GENERAL | These Washington statutes pertain to trespassing livestock animals. They provide for liability of owners for damage caused by such animals.There are also notification requirements to owners of trespassing animals. |