Results
Displaying 91 - 100 of 369
| Title | Citation | Alternate Citation | Agency Citation | Summary | Type |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ALDF v. Glickman | 204 F.3d 229(2000) | 340 U.S.App.D.C. 191(2000) |
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 |
Case | |
| TN - Wildlife - Part 2. Wildlife Regulation and Protection | T. C. A. § 70-4-201 - 211 | TN ST § 70-4-201 - 211 | These Tennessee statutes make it unlawful to barter, sell, transfer, or to purchase any wildlife without a hunting or fishing license. The unlawful importation, possession, or sale of skunks or red foxes is a Class C misdemeanor. The statutes also impose requirements on transport and storage of other wildlife. | Statute | |
| IL - Pet Shops - Chapter 225. Professions and Occupations. | 225 I.L.C.S. 605/1 - 22 | IL ST CH 225 § 605/1 - 22 | This section comprises Illinois' Animal Welfare Act. The Act is primarily aimed at regulating commercial pet dealers, such as kennels, breeders, and retail pet shops. The provisions include restrictions on the age at which both dogs and cats can be separated from their mothers (8 weeks). | Statute | |
| CA - Importation - Chapter 3. Importation of Wild Animals. | West's Ann. Cal. Health & Safety Code § 121775 - 121870 | CA HLTH & S § 121775 - 121870 | This California set of law relates to the importation of "wild animals" (defined as any animal of the class Aves (birds) or class Mammalia (mammals) that either is not normally domesticated in this state or not native to this state). The violation of any provision of this chapter shall be a misdemeanor. The department may issue a permit to import a wild animal provided that a determination is made that public health or safety will not be endangered.< | Statute | |
| FL - Rehabilitation, wildlife - 68A-9.006. Wildlife Rehabilitation Permit. | 68 FL ADC 68A-9.006 | Rule 68A-9.006, F.A.C. | This Florida regulation sets forth the requirements to obtain a permit for wildlife rehabilitation. | Administrative | |
| MO - Fish and Game - Chapter 252 (The Wildlife and Forestry Law) | V.A.M.S. 252.002 - 252.333 | MO ST 252.002 - 252.333 |
This chapter establishes the Missouri Department of Conservation, outlines the agency's scope of authority, and includes all of the state's wildlife and endangered species statutes. |
Statute | |
| IN - Exotic Pets - Article 9. Fish and Wildlife. Rule 3. Mammals. 312 IAC 9-3-18.5 Exotic mammals. | 312 IN ADC 9-3-18.5 | 312 IAC 9-3-18.5 | This regulation lists certain exotic mammals that may not be taken (harmed, harassed, or killed) and establishes restrictions on the possession and sale of those exotic mammals. | Administrative | |
| Nonhuman Rights Project, Inc. ex rel. Tommy v. Lavery | 152 A.D.3d 73, 54 N.Y.S.3d 392 (N.Y. App. Div. 2017) | 2017 WL 2471600 (N.Y. App. Div. June 8, 2017) | The Petitioners, including the Nonhuman Rights Project, Inc . filed two petitions for habeas corpus relief on behalf of Tommy and Kiko, two adult male chimpanzees. The petitions stated that chimpanzees are intelligent, have the ability to be trained by humans to be obedient to rules, and to fulfill certain duties and responsibilities. Therefore, chimpanzees should be afforded some of the same fundamental rights as humans which include entitlement to habeas relief. The Respondents, included Tommy’s owners, Circle L Trailer Sales, Inc. and its officers, as well as Kiko’s owners, the Primate Sanctuary, Inc. and its officers and directors. The Supreme Court, New York County, declined to extend habeas corpus relief to the chimpanzees. The Petitioners appealed. The Supreme Court, Appellate Division affirmed and held that:(1) the petitions were successive habeas proceedings which were not warranted or supported by any changed circumstances; (2) human-like characteristics of chimpanzees did not render them “persons” for purposes of habeas corpus relief; and (3) even if habeas relief was potentially available to chimpanzees, writ of habeas corpus did not lie on behalf of two chimpanzees at issue. | Case | |
| WA - Exotic Pet - Chapter 16.30. Dangerous Wild Animals | West's RCWA 16.30.005 - 900 | WA ST 16.30.005 - 900 | This Washington chapter passed in 2007 regulates the keeping of dangerous wild animals. By definition, a potentially dangerous wild animal includes, among others, lions, tigers, captive-bred cougars, jaguars, cheetahs, leopards, wolves, (but excluding wolf-hybrids), bears, hyenas, non-human primates, elephants, rhinoceroses, certain reptiles, and venomous snakes. A person shall not own, possess, keep, harbor, bring into the state, or have custody or control of a potentially dangerous wild animal. A person in legal possession of a potentially dangerous wild animal prior to July 22, 2007, and who is the legal possessor of the animal may keep possession of the animal for the remainder of the animal's life. | Statute | |
| MS - Exotic pet - Chapter 8. Importation, Sale and Possession of Inherently Dangerous Wild Animals. | Miss. Code Ann. § 49-8-1 to 49-8-19 | MS ST § 49-8-1 to 49-8-19 | This Mississippi chapter states that it is in the public interest to ensure the public health, safety and welfare by strictly regulating the importation, sale, transfer and possession of those wild animals inherently dangerous to humans. Several species are listed under this section as inherently dangerous to humans, including non-human primates, wolves, bears, hyenas, big cats, and hippopotamus, among others. It is unlawful for a person to import, transfer, sell, purchase or possess any wild animal classified inherently dangerous by law or regulation unless that person holds a permit. Those persons who were in possession of such animals on or before May 1, 1997 were able to continue possession provided that they complied with the permit process. Prior to the issuance of a permit, the applicant must have provided proof of liability insurance in the amount of $100,000.00 for each wild animal up to a maximum of $1,000,000.00. | Statute |