Results

Displaying 4381 - 4390 of 6844
Titlesort descending Author Citation Alternate Citation Agency Citation Summary Type
OK - Veterinarian Issues - Professional Conduct OK ADC 775:10-5-30 Okla. Admin. Code 775:10-5-30 The following acts and/or omissions shall be considered unprofessional conduct and shall constitute grounds for disciplinary action by the Oklahoma Board of Veterinary Medical Examiners. Administrative
OK - Veterinary - Chapter 15. Oklahoma Veterinary Practice Act. 59 Okl. St. Ann. § 698.1 - 33 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. Statute
OK - Wildlife - Part 5. Possession of Wildlife. 29 Okl.St.Ann. § 7-501 - 504 OK ST T. 29 § 7-501 - 504 Under these Oklahoma statutes, no person may possess any wildlife or parts thereof during the closed season, any endangered or threatened species or parts thereof at any time, or any native bear or native cat that will grow to reach the weight of 50 lbs. or more, with exceptions. A conviction could result in a fine of $100-$500 and/or by imprisonment up to 30 days. In addition, no person may buy, barter, trade, or sell all or any part of any fish or wildlife or the nest or eggs of any bird protected by law, with exceptions. A first violation could result in a fine of $100 to $500 and/or by imprisonment up to 60 days. Statute
OK - Wildlife - Part 6. Transportation of Wildlife 29 Okl.St.Ann. § 7-601 - 602 Under these Oklahoma statutes, no common carrier may transport any wildlife or endangered or rare species, with exceptions. A violation could result in a fine of $25 to $100. In addition, no person may transport into or out of Oklahoma any wildlife or parts thereof, nests of wildlife, their eggs or their young, or any endangered or threatened species, with exceptions. A violation could result in a fine of $50 to $200, and/or imprisonment of 10 to 60 days. Statute
OK - Wildlife - § 5-601. Wildlife breeders' sale and transportation of wildlife; tags for selling; invoices; records 29 Okl. St. Ann. § 5-601 - 602 OK ST T. 29 § 5-601 This Oklahoma statute permits all licensed wildlife breeders to sell and transport any live wildlife for propagation purposes as well as to sell and transport live or dead wildlife for food upon compliance with certain requirements. Statute
Olier v. Bailey 164 So. 3d 982 (Miss. 2015) 2015 WL 1611772 (Miss. 2015) Plaintiff was attacked and chased by a domestic goose in Defendant’s yard. As Plaintiff attempted to flee, she fell and broke her arm. Plaintiff sued Defendant in the County Court of Jackson County under a theory of premises liability and, alternatively, under the dangerous-propensity rule. The trial court granted summary judgment because it found that Plaintiff was a licensee on Defendant's property and that Defendant did not breach her duty of care toward Plaintiff. It also denied relief under the dangerous-propensity rule because there was no evidence that the particular goose that bit Plaintiff ever had exhibited dangerous propensities prior to the incident. Plaintiff appealed to the Jackson County Circuit Court, which affirmed. Plaintiff then filed the instant appeal. The Supreme Court of Mississippi held that, while Plaintiff cannot, as a matter of law, pursue her claim under her theory of general premises liability, she can proceed under the dangerous-propensity theory because the court found an issue of fact regarding whether Defendant was on notice of her geese's alleged dangerous propensity. Accordingly, the Supreme Court affirmed the trial court judgment in part, reversed it in part, and remanded for further proceedings. Case
On Redefining the Boundaries of Animal Ownership: Burdens and Benefits of Evidencing Animals' Personalities Geordie Duckler 10 Animal L. 63 (2004) What is it about the law’s archaic perception of animals that makes it falter on the brink of constructing a modern concept of animal ownership? Were animals as personalty appreciated in their fundamental distinctions from other personal properties, the law might be able to fashion a more sophisticated set of legal responsibilities for, and rewards of, such ownership. Progress toward achieving that refinement requires the law to embrace a set of related concepts: that animals can and do have personalities, as well as that evidence rules allow those personalities to be manifested through testimony in civil actions concerning an animal’s intent. As evidence doctrines on character and propensity expand and contract to address boundaries for these concepts, a fuller potential for property law may be effectively promoted as a result. Burdens (such as the new tort of negligent confinement) and benefits (such as a more reasoned acceptance of animal expression) await. Article
ON THE "NECESSARY SUFFERING" OF NONHUMAN ANIMALS Michael Allen Fox 3 Animal L. 25 (1997) This article extends Gary Francione's analysis of these concepts from Rain without Thunder within the context of animal experimentation. Michael argues that Francione's work leads us to the conclusion that the notions of necessary and unnecessary suffering are empty of meaning, and no significant difference exists between them. That humans cause animals to suffer in abundance is reality. That their suffering is necessary in order to fulfill human purposes is fantasy. Article
ON THE LAMB: TOWARD A NATIONAL ANIMAL ABUSER REGISTRY Stacy A. Nowicki 17 Animal L. 197 (2010)

A national animal abuser registry has the potential to provide law enforcement agencies with a much-needed tool for tracking animal abusers, but no such registry exists. This Comment first discusses existing state and federal criminal registries for sex offenders, child abusers, and elder abusers. It determines that existing criminal registries often contain inaccurate entries and that they have little deterrent effect, making their potential infringement on offenders’ Constitutional rights and other collateral consequences difficult to justify.  

This Comment then turns to the viability of a national animal abuse registry, discussing the link between the abuse of animals and violence towards other humans. Although no state or national animal abuse registries currently exist, several states have tried to pass legislation that would create such registries. In the absence of state-run registries, independent animal interest groups have formed registries of their own. This Comment explores the inherent drawbacks of volunteer-run, financially unaccountable organizations promulgating information about animal abusers. It then concludes that government funding and staffing could fix the accountability gaps that exist with the registries developed by private organizations and proposes a framework for a national animal abuse registry.

 Article
Opening The Laboratory Door: National and International Legal Responsibilities for the Use of Animals in Scientific Research--An Katrina Sharman 2 Journal of Animal Law 67 (2006)

Despite the increased availability of alternatives to the animal test model, laws and policies continue to be used as shields to justify the scientific use of animals in jurisdictions across the world. This article examines the legislative framework for animal research in Australia with a specific focus on the state of New South Wales. It also examines emerging international principles for the use of animals in scientific research.

Article

Pages