United States

Displaying 71 - 80 of 3590
Titlesort descending Summary
Alabama - Importation - Chapter 80-3-6. Livestock Sanitary Rules


This set of regulations sets forth the powers and duties of the State Veterinarian and includes import, transport, inspection, sanitation,and slaughter rules for livestock and poultry. In addition, it includes requirements for the import, transport, or exhibition of wild, semi-wild, and exotic animals, and the import of dogs, cats, ratites, and goats.

Alabama - Importation, wildlife - 220-2-.26. Restrictions On Possession, Sale, Importation And/Or Release Of Certain Animals And


This Alabama regulation provides that no person shall possess, sell, offer for sale, import, or bring into the state any of the listed species including piranha, mongoose, non-native coyote, fox, black bear, and others. Another section provides that no person shall propagate or release any nutria in the state. It is also unlawful for any person to have in possession any live, protected wild bird or wild animal or live embryo, eggs, or sperm of these protected wild birds or animals.

Alabama - Wildlife - Standards of Care for Wildlife Used for Public Exhibition


This regulation classifies all species of wildlife into three separate categories (Class I, Class II, and Class III) and creates a permit requirement for anyone wishing to exhibit those animals. It also includes various rules governing the housing, care, and display of wildlife possessed for public exhibition purposes.

Alaimo v. Racetrack at Evangeline Downs, Inc.


A racehorse breeder  and owner brought suit against a racetrack for the loss of future winnings after a racehorse collided with a negligently maintained gate on the racetrack.  The trial court awarded plaintiff $38,000 without specifying what the award was for.  The Court of Appeals affirmed the decision holding the award was not unreasonable based on the horse's racing history.

Alaska - Exotic Animals - Title 5. Fish and Game. Article 3. Permits.


These Alaska regulation provides that, except as otherwise provided in this chapter, no person may possess, import, release, export, or assist in those actions, live game, unless the person holds a possession permit issued by the department. The regulations also list species that may be possessed without a permit, but may not be released into the wild which includes dogs,cats, chimpanzees, white rats, and many others. The department may not issue a permit for the capture, possession, import, or export of any game animal, including a hybrid species of a game animal, for use as a pet. Any of the listed species of bird, mammal, or reptile that is endangered may not be held in private ownership without a permit from the United States Fish and Wildlife Service.

ALDF v. Glickman


Animal welfare group and individual plaintiffs brought action against, inter alia, United States Department of Agriculture (USDA), challenging its regulations concerning treatment of nonhuman primates on grounds that they violated USDA's statutory mandate under Animal Welfare Act (AWA).

ALDF v. Glickman


Animal welfare organization and individual plaintiffs brought action against United States Department of Agriculture (USDA), challenging regulations promulgated under Animal Welfare Act (AWA) to promote psychological well-being of nonhuman primates kept by exhibitors and researchers.  The Court of Appeals held that: (1) regulations were valid, and (2) animal welfare organization did not have standing to raise procedural injury. Case discussed in topic:

US Animal Welfare Act

ALDF v. Quigg
This case establishes the relative inability of third parties to challenge the veracity of an existing patent for genetically engineered animals.  Judicial review is rare in such cases because third party plaintiffs, under the Administrative Procedures Act, lack standing to challenge the Patent and Trademark Office's interpretation of existing law.
Allen v. Camp


Defendant shot and killed Plaintiff's dog, which had bitten Defendant's daughter several days earlier, for the purpose of sending the dog's head to a laboratory for examination for rabies. The Court of Appeals of Alabama found that Plaintiff's wife's injuries were too remote to be compensable, when the wife was not home at the time of the incident and became excited and hysterical upon hearing of the incident several hours later. The Appeals Court also held that although one may protect himself or his family from injury by a dog or other animal when on his own private property or on public property, the destruction of an animal is wrongful when the danger of attack and subsequent injury by that animal no longer exists, and where the animal is not trespassing.

Allen v. Cox


The plaintiff (Allen) brought this action against the defendants (Jessica Cox and Daniel Cox) alleging that she was injured by the defendants' cat after the defendants negligently allowed the cat to roam free. The trial court rendered summary judgment for the defendants. Relying mainly on the Restatement (Second), this court held that when a cat has a propensity to attack other cats, knowledge of that propensity may render the owner liable for injuries to people that foreseeably result from such behavior. 

Pages