|
TN - Vehicle - § 29-34-209. Forcible entry of a motor vehicle for purposes of removing a minor or an animal |
This statute grants a person who forcibly breaks into a motor vehicle to save a minor or animal immunity from civil liability. |
|
TN - Veterinary - Chapter 12. Veterinarians. |
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. |
|
TN - Wildlife - Chapter 1660-01-15 Rules and Regulations for Animal Importation. |
These Tennessee regulations outline the guidelines for importing any live wild animal species obtained from outside the State of Tennessee. |
|
TN - Wildlife - Part 2. Wildlife Regulation and Protection |
These Tennessee statutes make it unlawful to barter, sell, transfer, or to purchase any wildlife without a hunting or fishing license. The unlawful importation, possession, or sale of skunks or red foxes is a Class C misdemeanor. The statutes also impose requirements on transport and storage of other wildlife. |
|
TN - Wildlife, commercial use - 1660-01-17-.01. GENERAL PROVISIONS FOR COMMERCIAL USE. |
This Tennessee regulation describes the commercial use of wildlife. Under the regulation, the commercial use of any State or Federally endangered species is prohibited. The commercial use of State and Federally threatened species and those species deemed in need of management are permitted only when such species are legally taken for the purpose of sale in the State of origin as provided in T.C.A. 70-8-109. |
|
TN - Wildlife, possession - Chapter 1660-01-18. Rules and Regulations of Live Wildlife |
These Tennessee regulations outline the requirements for importation and possession of captive wildlife. The species of wildlife for each class of wildlife are described. Facilities for Class I wildlife are provided, which include specific requirements for Class I Felidae or Ursidae. The Class I qualification test requirements are also stated. |
|
Toledo v. Tellings |
In this Ohio case, the defendant, who owned three pit bull type dogs, was convicted in the Municipal Court, Lucas County, of violating the Toledo city ordinance that limited ownership to only one pit bull per household. On appeal by the City, the Supreme Court found the state and the city have a legitimate interest in protecting citizens against unsafe conditions caused by pit bulls. The evidence presented in the trial court supports the conclusion that pit bulls pose a serious danger to the safety of citizens. The statutes and the city ordinance are rationally related to serve the legitimate interests of protecting Ohio and Toledo citizens.
|
|
Toledo v. Tellings - Reversed - 871 N.E.2d 1152 (Ohio, 2007) |
Reversed
-
871 N.E.2d 1152 (Ohio, 2007). In this Ohio case, defendant, who owned three pit bull type dogs, was convicted in the Municipal Court of violating city ordinance limiting ownership to only one pit bull per household, and of violating statute requiring owner of a "vicious dog" to provide liability insurance. On appeal, the court held that the statute requiring an owner of a pit bull to provide liability insurance was unconstitutional. Further, the statute, which provides that the ownership of a pit bull is prima facie evidence of the ownership of a vicious dog, was unconstitutional because after hearing evidence the trial court found that pit bulls as a breed are not inherently dangerous. Thus, the court held that R.C. 955.11(A)(4)(a)(iii) is unconstitutional, since it has no real and substantial relationship to a legitimate state interest.
|
|
Toney v. Glickman |
Plaintiffs were in the business of selling animals to research facilities. The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) found that they had committed hundreds of violations of the Animal Welfare Act, 7 U.S.C. §§ 2131 et seq. The ALH then imposed what was, to that point, the harshest sanction, $200,000, in the history of the Act. The Judicial Officer affirmed the ALJ's findings and denied the Plaintiffs' request to reopen the hearing for consideration of new evidence. While the 8th Circuit affirmed most of these findings, it held that the evidence did not support all of them. Accordingly, the court remanded the matter to the Department for redetermination of the sanction. The court also affirmed the Judicial Officer's refusal to reopen the hearing and denied the Plaintiffs' Request for Leave to Adduce Additional Evidence. The Plaintiffs were free, however, to seek leave to offer this additional evidence on remand to the extent it was relevant to the sanction. |
|
TOWARD A MORE APPROPRIATE JURISPRUDENCE REGARDING THE LEGAL STATUS OF ZOOS AND ZOO ANIMALS |
|
