Results

Displaying 2811 - 2820 of 6844
Titlesort descending Author Citation Alternate Citation Agency Citation Summary Type
IN - Wild Animal - Chapter 28. Permit to Take, Kill, or Capture Wild Animal Damaging Property I.C. 14-22-28-1 - 5 IN ST 14-22-28-1 to 5 A person whose property is being damaged by a protected wild animal may be issued a free permit to take, kill, or capture the wild animal. The director prescribes how the animal is taken, when the permit expires, and the disposition of the animal. The director may deny a permit if the wild animal is not causing the damage or the person would abuse the privileges. Statute
IN - Wild Animal - Rule 11. Wild Animal Possession Permits. Ind. Admin. Code tit. 312, r. 9-11-1 to 15 312 IAC 9-11-1 to 15 This chapter of regulations provides the rules and requirements for possession of wild animals in Indiana. Administrative
IN - Wild Animals - Chapter 26. Wild Animal Permit IC 14-22-26-1 - 6 IN ST 14-22-26-1 - 6 This set of laws deals with Wild Animal Permits in Indiana. Section 3 allows the Director to adopt rules that require permits to possess wild animals protected by laws or rules. The director may also adopt a rule that requires a permit to possess a wild animal that may be harmful or dangerous to plants or animals. Permits under this chapter may be suspended by the director and animal may be seized if the animal is in a position to harm another animal or the life or health of the animal is in peril. This chapter does not apply to licensed commercial animal dealers, zoological parks, circuses, or carnivals. Statute
IN - Wildlife (Protection) Act of 1972 Act. No. 52 of 1972

India's Wildlife Protection Act of 1972 is a comprehensive piece of legislation that regulates sanctuaries, national parks, and zoos among other protected locations.  Its primary aim is to curb the illegal trade in wildlife and the derivative parts.

Statute
IN - Wildlife - THE WILD LIFE (PROTECTION) AMENDMENT ACT, 2002 THE WILD LIFE (PROTECTION) AMENDMENT ACT, 2002, No. 16 of 2003

This law comprises India's Wild Life (Protection) Amendment Act, 2002. According to the amended long title, it is "An Act to provide for the protection of wild animals, birds and plants and for matters connected therewith or ancillary or incidental thereto with a view to ensuring the ecological and environmental security of the country. " The Amendment Act also establishes the National Board for Wild Life.

Statute
In Arkansas Which Comes First, the Chicken or the Environment? John T. Hollerman 6 Tul. Envtl. L.J. 21 (1992)

This article looks at the effect of Arkansas' extensive poultry industry, which operates without regulation, on the environment, wildlife, fish and water quality.

Article
In Defense of Animals v. Cleveland Metroparks Zoo 785 F.Supp. 100 (N.D. Ohio, 1991)

This case involves a challenge by several organizations to the proposed move of Timmy, a lowland gorilla, from the Cleveland Metroparks Zoo to the Bronx Zoo in New York for the purposes of mating Timmy with female gorillas at the Bronx Zoo. Plaintiffs filed this lawsuit on October 25, 1991, in the Court of Common Pleas of Cuyahoga County, and moved for a temporary restraining order.  The District Court held that the claim was preempted under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) and the Animal Welfare Act (AWA) and that plaintiffs failed to state a claim under the ESA.  Further, the court held that plaintiffs had no private cause of action under the AWA. 

Case
In Defense of Animals v. National Institutes of Health 527 F.Supp.2d 23 (D.D.C., 2007) 2007 WL 4329474 (D.D.C.)

This FOIA case was brought against the National Institutes of Health ("NIH") by In Defense of Animals (“IDA”) seeking information related to approximately 260 chimpanzees located as the Alamogordo Primate Facility (“APF”) in New Mexico. Before the court now is NIH's Motion for Partial Reconsideration as to the release of records. This Court rejected NIH’s arguments that the records are not “agency records” because they belong to NIH's contractor, Charles River Laboratories, Inc. (“CRL”), a publicly held animal research company. Also, the Court was equally unconvinced that the information requested here is “essentially a blueprint of the APF facility,” and that release of such information presents a security risk to the facility. This Order was Superseded by In Defense of Animals v. National Institutes of Health , 543 F.Supp.2d 70 (D.D.C., 2008).

Case
In Defense of Animals v. National Institutes of Health 543 F.Supp.2d 70 (D.C.C., 2008)

This FOIA case was brought against the National Institutes of Health ("NIH") by In Defense of Animals (“IDA”) seeking information related to approximately 260 chimpanzees located as the Alamogordo Primate Facility (“APF”) in New Mexico. Before the court now is NIH's Motion for Partial Reconsideration as to the release of records. This Court rejected NIH’s arguments that the records are not “agency records” because they belong to NIH's contractor, Charles River Laboratories, Inc. (“CRL”), a publicly held animal research company. Also, the Court was equally unconvinced that the information requested here is “essentially a blueprint of the APF facility,” and that release of such information presents a security risk to the facility.

Case
In Defense of Animals v. Oregon Health Sciences University 112 P.3d 336 (Or. 2005) 199 Or.App. 160 (2005)

A nonprofit corporation petitioned the trial court for injunctive and declaratory relief regarding fees charged by a state university primate research center for document inspection.  The circuit court dismissed the action with prejudice, reasoning it lacked subject matter jurisdiction over the fee issue and, assuming jurisdiction existed, the fees were in compliance with law.  The Court of Appeals reversed and remanded, holding the circuit court had jurisdiction to review the basis, reasonableness and amount of fees charged by the university.

Case

Pages