Results
Displaying 81 - 90 of 369
| Title | Citation | Alternate Citation | Agency Citation | Summary | Type |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| MI - Enforcement - Chapters 760 to 777 Code of Criminal Procedure. | M. C. L. A. 764.16 | MI ST 764.16 | This law authorizes private citizens to make arrests. | Statute | |
| WI - Exotic pets - Chapter 169. Captive Wildlife | W. S. A. 169.01 - 46 | WI ST 169.01 - 46 | The Wisconsin wildlife laws require a license to take a wild animal from the wild or to import one into the state. A license is also required to exhibit, breed, rehabilitate, hunt, and/or purchase wild animals. Violations can result in fines, forfeiture, and/or imprisonment. | Statute | |
| MI - Cruelty - Consolidated Cruelty Statutes (MCL 750.49 - 70) | M. C. L. A. 750.49 - 70a; M.C.L.A. 750.158 | MI ST 750.49 - 70a; 750.158 | The Michigan Legislature has designed three primary provisions related to cruelty to animals: intentional infliction of pain and suffering, duty to provide care, and anti-animal fighting. The intentional infliction of pain and suffering provision carries the most severe penalties for animal cruelty and a violation is automatically a felony. A violation of the duty to provide care provision is initially a misdemeanor, which becomes a felony for a second or subsequent violation. A violation of the anti-animal fighting provision is either a misdemeanor or a felony, depending on the severity of conduct related to fighting. The provision does not apply to the lawful killing of livestock or customary animal husbandry of livestock, or lawful fishing, hunting, trapping, wildlife control, pest or rodent control, and animal research. | Statute | |
| SD - Cruelty - Consolidated Cruelty Statutes | S D C L § 9-29-11; S D C L § 40-1-1 - 41; S D C L § 40-2-1 - 9; S D C L § 43-39-12, 12.1; SDCL § 22-22-42, 43, 44 | SD ST § 9-29-11; SD ST § 40-1-1 - 41; SD ST § 40-2-1 - 9; SD ST § 43-39-12, 12.1; SD ST § 22-22-42, 43, 44 | These South Dakota statutes comprise the state's anti-cruelty and animal fighting provisions. "Animal," any mammal, bird, reptile, amphibian, or fish, except humans. "Cruelty” means to intentionally, willfully, and maliciously inflict gross physical abuse on an animal that causes prolonged pain, that causes serious physical injury, or that results in the death of the animal. Any person who subjects an animal to cruelty is guilty of a Class 6 felony. “Neglect,” means to fail to provide food, water, protection from the elements, adequate sanitation, adequate facilities, or care generally considered to be standard and accepted for an animal's health and well-being consistent with the species, breed, physical condition, and type of animal. Any person who neglects an animal is guilty of a Class 1 misdemeanor. Exemptions include regulated scientific experiments using live animals and the destruction of dangerous animals. | Statute | |
| CA - Crimes - § 597. Cruelty to animals | West's Ann. Cal. Penal Code § 597 | CA PENAL § 597 | This statutes states that anyone who maliciously and intentionally maims, mutilates, tortures, or wounds a living animal, or maliciously and intentionally kills an animal, is guilty of an offense punishable by imprisonment in the state prison, or by a fine of not more than twenty thousand dollars ($ 20,000), or by both the fine and imprisonment, or, alternatively, by imprisonment in a county jail for not more than one year, or by a fine of not more than twenty thousand dollars ($ 20,000), or by both the fine and imprisonment. The statute also defines specific forms of torture and mistreatment that qualifies as a crime under this section. | Statute | |
| MT - Exotic wildlife - Part 7. Importation, Introduction, and Transplantation of Wildlife | MCA 87-5-701 to 87-5-725 | MT ST 87-5-701 to 87-5-725 | These Montana statutes control the importation, introduction, and transplantation of exotic wildlife into the state. The importation of any wildlife is prohibited unless the species poses no threat of harm to native wildlife and plants or to agricultural production and that the introduction has significant public benefits. Violations may result in a fine or imprisonment. | Statute | |
| NM - Cruelty - Consolidated Cruelty Statutes | NMSA 1978, § 30-9A-1 - 3; § 30-18-1 to 30-18-16; NMSA 1978, § 77-18-2 to 4 | NM ST § 30-9A-1 - 3; § 30-18-1 to 30-18-16; NM ST § 77-18-2 to 4 | This section comprises the New Mexico anti-animal cruelty provisions. As used in this section, "animal" does not include insects or reptiles. Cruelty to animals occurs when a person mistreats, injures, kills without lawful justification or torments an animal or abandons or fails to provide necessary sustenance to an animal under that person's custody or control. Extreme cruelty to animals, a fourth-degree felony, consists of a person intentionally or maliciously torturing, mutilating, injuring or poisoning an animal or maliciously killing an animal. Upon conviction, the court may order a person to participate in an animal cruelty prevention program or an animal cruelty education program, or to obtain psychological counseling for treatment of a mental health disorder. In 2023, the state passed a law to outlaw bestiality. | Statute | |
| UT - Wildlife Possession - R657-3. Collection, Importation, Transportation, and Possession of Animals. | UT ADC R657-3 | U.A.C. R657-3 | This set of Utah rules concerns the collection, importation, and possession of zoological animals under circumstances described in the rules. Commonly kept domestic animals such as alpacas, donkeys, cats, dogs and hybrid dogs, gerbils, goats, hamsters, and many others are not governed by these rules. A person shall obtain a certificate of registration before collecting, importing, transporting, or possessing any species of animal or its parts classified as prohibited or controlled. A person may not release to the wild or release into any public or private waters any zoological animal, including fish, without first obtaining authorization from the division. Certain species are prohibited for collection, importation, and possession. These species include bighorn sheep, bears, coyotes, gray wolves, wild cats, skunks, lemurs, great apes, and those species listed in Appendix I or II of CITES, among others listed in R657-3-24. | Administrative | |
| Missouri Primate Foundation v. People for Ethical Treatment of Animals, Inc. | Slip Copy, 2018 WL 1420239 (E.D. Mo. Mar. 22, 2018) | This matter is a motion of counterclaim by defendants Missouri Primate Foundation to dismiss PETA's (the counterclaim plaintiff) assertion that two chimpanzees were being held in conditions that deprived the chimpanzees of adequate social groups, space, and psychological stimulation, putting them at risk of and causing physical and psychological injury, such as deteriorated cardiovascular and musculoskeletal health, stress, anxiety and depression. PETA also alleges that the chimpanzees were denied a sanitary environment, proper ventilation, a healthy diet, and adequate veterinary care. PETA claimed that the Missouri Primate Foundation (MPF) (the counterclaim defendants) were holding the two chimpanzees in conditions that “harm” and “harass” the chimpanzees, thus violating the “take” prohibition of the Endangered Species Act (ESA). MPF's motion contends that PETA’s counterclaim is based on allegations that they failed to comply with the Animal Welfare Act, not the ESA. MPF further contends that because the chimpanzees at its facility were lawfully in captivity and under the auspices of the AWA as administered by the USDA–APHIS, so the chimpanzees cannot be subject to a “take” under the ESA. They further argued that PETA lacked standing as the AWA preempts or supersedes the ESA as to animals held at USDA licensed facilities. Because the AWA does not allow citizen suits, MPF argued, the case must be dismissed. After examining similar cases, this court concluded that claims under the AWA and ESA are complementary and do not conflict, and that the ESA protects captive animals regardless of whether the alleged violator is an AWA licensed entity. The court found that the allegations by PETA are sufficient at this stage of the case and issues of proof are reserved for trial. As such, the court denied the motions of the counterclaim defendants. | Case | ||
| Howard v. Chimps, Inc. | 284 P.3d 1181 (Or. App. 2012) | 2012 WL 3195145 (Or. App. 2012); 251 Or.App.636 (2012) |
While cleaning a cage at a chimpanzee sanctuary, the plaintiff was twice attacked by a chimpanzee, which left the plaintiff without much of her thumb. Plaintiff brought a suit against the sanctuary based on claims of strict liability; under a statute and common law; negligence; and gross negligence. At the district court, the plaintiff lost because she had signed a waiver releasing the sanctuary from liability "on all claims for death, personal injury, or property damage" and because she failed to state a claim in regards to the gross negligence charge. In affirming the lower court's decision, the appellate court found an enforceable contract existed with the waiver, and that there was no evidence of reckless disregard on defendant's part to rise to the level of gross negligence. |
Case |