U.S. Code » Title 15 » Chapter CHAPTER 44— PROTECTION OF HORSES

15 U.S.C. § 1824

Unlawful acts

Read at: OLRCuscode.house.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov JustiaTitle 15 CasesGoogle Scholar
The following conduct is prohibited:(1) The shipping, transporting, moving, delivering, or receiving of any horse which is sore with reason to believe that such horse while it is sore may be shown, exhibited, entered for the purpose of being shown or exhibited, sold, auctioned, or offered for sale, in any horse show, horse exhibition, or horse sale or auction; except that this paragraph does not apply to the shipping, transporting, moving, delivering, or receiving of any horse by a common or contract carrier or an employee thereof in the usual course of the carrier’s business or employee’s employment unless the carrier or employee has reason to believe that such horse is sore.(2) The (A) showing or exhibiting, in any horse show or horse exhibition, of any horse which is sore, (B) entering for the purpose of showing or exhibiting in any horse show or horse exhibition, any horse which is sore, (C) selling, auctioning, or offering for sale, in any horse sale or auction, any horse which is sore, and (D) allowing any activity described in clause (A), (B), or (C) respecting a horse which is sore by the owner of such horse.(3) The failure by the management of any horse show or horse exhibition, which does not appoint and retain a person in accordance with section 1823(c) of this title, to disqualify from being shown or exhibited any horse which is sore.(4) The failure by the management of any horse sale or auction, which does not appoint and retain a qualified person in accordance with section 1823(c) of this title, to prohibit the sale, offering for sale, or auction of any horse which is sore.(5) The failure by the management of any horse show or horse exhibition, which has appointed and retained a person in accordance with section 1823(c) of this title, to disqualify from being shown or exhibited any horse (A) which is sore, and (B) after having been notified by such person or the Secretary that the horse is sore or after otherwise having knowledge that the horse is sore.(6) The failure by the management of any horse sale or auction which has appointed and retained a person in accordance with section 1823(c) of this title, to prohibit the sale, offering for sale, or auction of any horse (A) which is sore, and (B) after having been notified by such person or the Secretary or after otherwise having knowledge that the horse is sore.(7) The showing or exhibiting at a horse show or horse exhibition; the selling or auctioning at a horse sale or auction; the allowing to be shown, exhibited, or sold at a horse show, horse exhibition, or horse sale or auction; the entering for the purpose of showing or exhibiting in any horse show or horse exhibition; or offering for sale at a horse sale or auction, any horse which is wearing or bearing any equipment, device, paraphernalia, or substance which the Secretary by regulation under section 1828 of this title prohibits to prevent the soring of horses.(8) The failing to establish, maintain, or submit records, notices, reports, or other information required under section 1823 of this title.(9) The failure or refusal to permit access to or copying of records, or the failure or refusal to permit entry or inspection, as required by section 1823 of this title.(10) The removal of any marking required by the Secretary to identify a horse as being detained.(11) The failure or refusal to provide the Secretary with adequate space or facilities, as the Secretary may by regulation under section 1828 of this title prescribe, in which to conduct inspections or any other activity authorized to be performed by the Secretary under this chapter.(Pub. L. 91–540, § 5, Dec. 9, 1970, 84 Stat. 1405; Pub. L. 94–360, § 6, July 13, 1976, 90 Stat. 916.)Editorial NotesAmendments

1976—Pub. L. 94–360 substituted provisions prohibiting the transportation, receipt, exhibition, sale, or auction of a sored horse, and the showing, sale or auction of a horse bearing any device or substance prohibited by regulation of the Secretary, and making the management of a horse show, exhibition, or sale, responsible for failure to disqualify such horses from participating, and for interfering with the conducting of inspections by the Secretary of horses in the show or of the management records, for provisions authorizing the inspection of horses, transported in commerce, and requiring the management of shows and exhibitions to maintain such records as the Secretary prescribes. Provisions now covering the maintenance of records and the inspection of horses are set out as section 1823 of this title.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 32 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1981–2023 · leading case: William Dwaine Elliott v. Adm'r, Animal & Plant Health Inspection Serv., United States Dep't of Agric. United States of Am., 990 F.2d 140 (4th Cir. 1993).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
William Dwaine Elliott v. Adm'r, Animal & Plant Health Inspection Serv., United States Dep't of Agric. United States of Am., 990 F.2d 140 (4th Cir. 1993). · cites it 5× “Elliott 1 appeals the decision of the Secretary of the United States Department of Agriculture (Secretary) that he violated § 5(2)(B) (codified at 15 U.S.C. § 1824 (2)(B)) 2 of the Horse Protection Act.”
Billy Gray v. United States Dep't of Agric., 39 F.3d 670 (6th Cir. 1994). · cites it 7× “Petitioner appeals a decision of the Secretary of the United States Department of Agriculture (“Secretary”) finding that he violated section 5(2)(B) of the Horse Protection Act (“Act”) as amended, 15 U.S.C. § 1824 (2)(B). Petitioner argues that the evidence against him is…”
Calvin L. Baird, Sr. v. United States Dep't of Agric., 39 F.3d 131 (6th Cir. 1994). · cites it 10× “Petitioner appeals the decision of the Secretary of the United States Department of Agriculture (“Secretary”) finding that he violated 15 U.S.C. § 1824 (2)(D) on two separate occasions by allowing horses he owned to be exhibited and entered in a horse show while *132 the horses…”
Turner v. United States Dep't of Agric., 217 F. App'x 462 (6th Cir. 2007). · cites it 10× “” The issues on appeal are (1) whether substantial evidence supports the finding of the Judicial Officer that The Ultra Doc was sore within the meaning of the HPA, and (2) whether petitioner Harmon “entered” The Ultra Doc into the show under 15 U.S.C. § 1824 (2)(B). For the…”
Richard L. Thornton & Bill Cantrell v. United States Dep't of Agric., 715 F.2d 1508 (11th Cir. 1983). · cites it 5× “2 The ALJ found that trainer Cantrell had shown or exhibited a sored horse in violation of 15 U.S.C. § 1824 (2)(A), assessed him a civil penalty of $2,000.”
Thomas Burton, Jr., Leroy Franks v. United States Dep't of Agric., George Blades, Leroy Franks v. United States Dep't of Agric., 683 F.2d 280 (8th Cir. 1982). · cites it 6× “Said Decisions and Orders affirmed the findings of the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) that LeRoy Franks “allowed” his horse to be shown in a “sored” condition in violation of 15 U.S.C. § 1824 . 1 LeRoy Franks is retired from every occupation other than that of breeder and…”
Eldon Stamper & Sonya Stamper (Dba Chezmyrae Walkers), Ron H. Fox, & v. Sec'y of Agric., United States Dep't of Agric., &, 722 F.2d 1483 (9th Cir. 1984). · cites it 3× “at 2 (1976), reprinted in 1976 U.S.Code Cong. & Admin.News 1696.”
Sheryl Crawford v. United States Dep't of Agric., 50 F.3d 46 (D.C. Cir. 1995). · cites it 3× “15 U.S.C. § 1824 (2)(A)-(D). Per Congress’ 1976 amendments to the HPA, the government need not prove intent to sore in order to establish civil — as opposed to criminal— liability.”
Am. Horse Prot. Ass'n, Inc. v. Richard E. Lyng, Sec'y, U.S. Dep't of Agric., 812 F.2d 1 (D.C. Cir. 1987). “Use of action devices in violation of either the general or specific prohibitions is unlawful under 15 U.S.C. § 1824 (7) and may subject the violator to both criminal and civil penalties under 15 U.”
Derickson v. United States Dep't of Agric., 546 F.3d 335 (6th Cir. 2008). · cites it 3× “Derick-son”) (referred to jointly as “the Derick-sons”) petition this court for review of the decision of the Secretary of Agriculture that they violated 15 U.S.C. §§ 1824 (1) and 1824(2)(B), the Horse Protection Act of 1970 (“Act”), by transporting and entering in a horse show…”
McConnell v. United States Dep't of Agric., 198 F. App'x 417 (6th Cir. 2006). · cites it 3× “15 U.S.C. § 1824 (1) and (2). The statute proscribes the following: (1) The shipping, transporting, moving, delivering, or receiving of any horse which is sore with reason to believe that such horse while it is sore may be shown, exhibited, entered for the purpose of being shown…”
Stewart v. United States Dep't of Agric., 64 F. App'x 941 (6th Cir. 2003). · cites it 6× “15 U.S.C. § 1824 (2). In 1988, Stewart owned seven Tennessee Walking Horses, including one named “JFK’s 0 My Jackie 0” (“Jackie 0”).”
Show all 32 citing cases →
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.