Results
Displaying 711 - 720 of 6844
Title |
Citation | Summary | Type |
|---|---|---|---|
| Bolivia - Animal control - LEY Nº 4095, 2009 | LEY Nº 4095, 2009 | Declared of necessity and public utility, the construction of shelters for abandoned pets in the city of Oruro is authorized under this law to protect the health and physical integrity of people as well as the welfare of animals. | Statute |
| Bolivia - Circus - LEY Nº 4040, 2009 | LEY Nº 4040, 2009 | This law eliminates the use of wild and/or domestic animals in circuses in the national territory, as it is considered an act of cruelty against animals. Circuses were given a deadline of one year to surrender their animals and modify their shows. | Statute |
| Bolivia - Cruelty - Ley 700, 2015 | Ley 700, 2015 | Ley 700, is the animal cruelty statute of Bolivia. This law lays out the rules for the defense of animals against cruelty committed by humans. Animals are considered part of mother earth, and therefore, their life has to be defended and respected. This law punishes physical, psychological, emotional and sexual mistreatment, and prohibits the breeding of domestic animals for commercial purposes. It also prohibits sport hunting and overworking animals, especially those of an older age. | Statute |
| Bolivia - Dangerous dog - LEY Nº 553 , 2014 | LEY Nº 553, 2014 | This law contains the legal framework that establishes the minimum legal conditions for the possession of dangerous dogs. The purpose of this law is to prevent aggression against people and their property by prohibiting the possession of dangerous dogs. Possession of dangerous dogs is allowed with prior authorization, obtaining a license, and compliance with safety measures established in this law. | Statute |
| Bolivia - Endangered species - Ley N° 12301 | Ley N° 12301 | The "wildlife, national parks, hunting, and fishing law," regulates the protection, use, transportation, and commercialization of wildlife and its products, and the protection of endangered species, among other things. It encourages the rational and sustainable use of wildlife and natural resources. | Statute |
| Bolivia - Rights of nature - LEY 71, 2010 | Ley 71 is “the law for the rights of mother earth." This law recognizes the rights of Mother Earth, as well as the obligations and duties of the government and society to guarantee respect for these rights. This law gives the environment, or "mother earth," and all its components, the status of collective subject of public interest for the purpose of guaranteeing the protection of its rights. | Statute | |
| Bolivia - Rights of nature - LEY Nº 300, 2012 | LEY Nº 300, 2012 | Ley 300 establishes the legal framework for the conservation of the environment, or "mother earth." This law recognizes the rights of mother earth and the legal status that are subjects of rights. | Statute |
| Bolivia - Wildlife - Ley 2352, 2002 | Ley 2352, 2002 | Approved and adopted the "CONVENTION ON THE CONSERVATION OF MIGRATORY SPECIES OF WILD ANIMALS" signed in Bonn, Germany, on June 23, 1979, into the Bolivian legal system. | Statute |
| Bolivia - Wildlife - Ley No. 1333 | Ley No. 1333 | This is the most important law regarding the protection of the environment and natural resources in Bolivia. It regulates human interaction with nature and promotes sustainable development to improve the quality of life of the population. Under this law, wildlife trafficking is punished with up to 6 years of imprisonment. | Statute |
| Bone v. Vill. Club, Inc. | 223 F.Supp. 3d 1203 (M.D. Fla. 2016) | This case dealt with a woman's request to have her emotional-support dog live with her before purchasing land in a mobile home community, known as Brookhaven. Prior to purchasing her lot, the plaintiff allegedly received permission from the president of Brookhaven's board of directors to keep her dog, even though the plaintiff was purchasing a lot in the "no pet" section of Brookhaven. The plaintiff provided the president of the board with the documentation requested, and the president told plaintiff she had been approved by the board to have her dog. Approximately one year after plaintiff purchased her lot, Brookhaven's attorney sent a letter requesting that plaintiff remove her dog, citing Brookhaven's policies disallowing her dog. After several letters sent back and forth between plaintiff's attorney and Brookhaven's attorney concerning requirements of the Fair Housing Act and the party's respective actions, both parties cross-moved for summary judgement. The court held that 1) genuine issue of material fact existed as to whether tenant had an actual disability; 2) landlord was not prejudiced by tenant's untimely disclosure of expert report; 3) genuine issue of material fact existed as to whether landlord constructively denied tenant an accommodation; and 4) genuine issue of material fact existed as to whether landlord retaliated against tenant for requesting a disability accommodation. As a result, all motions for summary judgement were denied. | Case |