Results

Displaying 51 - 60 of 369
Title Citation Alternate Citation Agency Citation Summary Type
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
TX - Cruelty - Consolidated Cruelty Statutes V.T.C.A., Penal Code § 42.09; § 42.091; § 42.092; § 42.10; § 42.105; § 42.107 TX PENAL § 42.09; § 42.091; § 42.092; § 42.10; § 42.105; § 42.107 These comprise Texas' anti-cruelty laws. Texas has laws that prohibit cruelty to both livestock (sec. 42.09) and non-livestock animals (sec. 42.092). Both laws requires a scienter of intentionally or knowingly, and enumerate limited defenses. "Animal" means a domesticated living creature and wild living creature previously captured but does not include an uncaptured wild creature. Also included is Texas animal fighting provision, which criminalizes being a spectator at an animal fighting exhibition among other things. In 2011, Texas enacted a law prohibiting cockfighting. Statute
TN - Wildlife - Chapter 1660-01-15 Rules and Regulations for Animal Importation. TN ADC 1660-01-15-.01, .02 Tenn. Comp. R. & Regs. 1660-01-15-.01 to .02 These Tennessee regulations outline the guidelines for importing any live wild animal species obtained from outside the State of Tennessee. Administrative
OH - Endangered Species - Chapter 1518. Endangered Species. R.C. § 1518.01 - 1518.99; 1531.25, 1531.99 OH ST § 1518.01 - 1518.99; 1531.25, 1531.99 These Ohio statutes protect both endangered plants and animals as defined by the State of Ohio as well as those species listed on the federal ESA list. Taking of an endangered or threatened animal species constitutes a misdemeanor and the person is required upon pleading guilty to the offense, in addition to any fine, term of imprisonment, seizure, and forfeiture imposed, to make restitution for the minimum value of the wild animal illegally held, taken, or possessed. Notably, if the aggregate value of the animal(s) taken exceeds $1,000, a person is guilty of a felony. Statute
KY - Endangered Species - Chapter 150. Fish and Wildlife Resources. KRS § 150.180, 183, 260, 280, 990 KY ST § 150.180, 183, 260, 280, 990 Under Kentucky law, no person shall import, transport, possess for resale or sell any endangered species of wildlife. The term "endangered species" means any species of wildlife seriously threatened with worldwide extinction or in danger of being extirpated from the Commonwealth of Kentucky. Violation of the Act may result in fines or possible imprisonment depending on the statutory section violated, and license sanctions may also result. Statute
CA - Research animals - Group 5. Care of Laboratory Animals Cal. Admin. Code tit. 17, § 1150 -1159 17 CCR §§ 1150 -1159 This set of regulations establishes certification requirements for research facilities that use live animals in experiments, sets minimum standards of care for research animals, and addresses the requirements for filing complaints with the Department of Public Health. Administrative
US - AWA - Part 1. Definition of Terms. § 1.1 Definitions. 9 C.F.R. § 1.1 This portion of the Animal Welfare Act (AWA) regulations consists primarily of the definitions of the terms. Administrative
ND - Wildlife, possession/rehabilitation - Article 48.1-09. Nontraditional Livestock. N.D. Admin. Code § 48.1-09-01-01 - 48.1-09-06-01 NDAC 48.1-09-01-01 - 48.1-09-06-01 This section of North Dakota regulations concerns non-traditional livestock: any nondomestic species held in confinement or which is physically altered to limit movement and facilitate capture. The regulations describe three categories of animals: category 1 - those species generally considered domestic, or not inherently dangerous (such as turkeys, geese, ranch mink, and ducks); category 2 - certain protected species or those species that may pose health risks to humans or animals or may be environmentally hazardous (such as all deer, zebras, and nondomestic cats not listed in category 3); and category 3 - those species determined by the board to pose special concerns, including species which are inherently dangerous or environmentally hazardous (such as nondomestic swine, big cats, bears, wolves, venomous reptiles, primates, and non-domestic sheep and goats). Additionally, a person may not keep a skunk or raccoon in captivity. There are specific licensing requirements for category 2 and 3 species. The owner shall obtain a license from the board before acquiring animals classified as nontraditional livestock category 2 and category 3 species. A license or permit may not be granted by the board until it is satisfied that the provisions for housing and caring for such nontraditional livestock and for protecting the public are proper and adequate and in accordance with the standards prescribed by the board. Administrative
CA - Cruelty, exemptions - § 599c. Construction of title; game laws; West's Ann. Cal. Penal Code § 599c CA PENAL § 599c This statute makes it clear that the title is not meant to interfere with “game laws” or the right to destroy venomous reptiles or other dangerous animal. Neither is there an intent to interfere with laws regarding the destruction of certain birds, interfere with the right to kill animals used for food or with scientific experiments. Statute
Baugh v. Beatty 205 P.2d 671 (Cal.App.2.Dist.) 91 Cal.App.2d 786 (Cal.App.2.Dist.)

This California case is a personal injury action by Dennis Ray Baugh, a minor, by John R. Baugh, his guardian ad litem, against Clyde Beatty and others, resulting from injuries suffered by the 4-year old child after he was  bitten by a chimpanzee in a circus animal tent. The court found that the instructions given were prejudicial where the jurors were told that the patron could not recover if the patron's conduct caused injury or if the conduct of the father in charge of patron caused injury; instead, the sole question for jury should have been whether patron knowingly and voluntarily invited injury because the animal was of the class of animals ferae naturae, of known savage and vicious nature.

Case

Pages