Results
Displaying 361 - 369 of 369
| Title | Citation | Alternate Citation | Agency Citation | Summary | Type |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| In Defense of Animals v. Cleveland Metroparks Zoo | 785 F.Supp. 100 (N.D. Ohio, 1991) |
This case involves a challenge by several organizations to the proposed move of Timmy, a lowland gorilla, from the Cleveland Metroparks Zoo to the Bronx Zoo in New York for the purposes of mating Timmy with female gorillas at the Bronx Zoo. Plaintiffs filed this lawsuit on October 25, 1991, in the Court of Common Pleas of Cuyahoga County, and moved for a temporary restraining order. The District Court held that the claim was preempted under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) and the Animal Welfare Act (AWA) and that plaintiffs failed to state a claim under the ESA. Further, the court held that plaintiffs had no private cause of action under the AWA. |
Case | ||
| OR - Endangered Species - Chapter 496. Application, Administration and Enforcement of Wildlife Laws. | O. R. S. § 496.171 - 996; 498.026 | OR ST § 496.171 - 996; 498.026 | These Oregon statutes set out the definitions and rules relating to the Oregon endangered species laws. Specifically, Oregon law provides rules for listing based on the federal ESA list as well as the state criteria. Violation of the law constitutes a Class A misdemeanor with an enhanced felony provision for subsequent convictions involving certain species (i.e., taking of game fish with a total value of $200 or more or the taking of antelope, black bear, cougar, deer, elk, moose, mountain goat or mountain sheep in violation of the wildlife laws) within a ten-year period. | Statute | |
| NM - Scientific - 19.35.6. Authorized Uses of Wildlife for Education, Law Enforcement, Research and Scientific Purposes | 19.35.6.1 - 17 NMAC | N.M. Admin. Code 19.35.6.1 - 17 | This New Mexico rule issued by the department of game and fish and all persons provides information on the taking and possession of protected wildlife for scientific and educational purposes. | Administrative | |
| Orangutana, Sandra s/ Habeas Corpus | Orangutana, Sandra s/ Habeas Corpus | This decision was decided on an appeal of the writ of habeas corpus brought on behalf of an orangutan named Sandra after it was denied in its first instance. Pablo Buompadre, President of the Association of Officials and Attorneys for the Rights of Animals (AFADA) brought a writ of habeas corpus against the Government of the Autonomous City of Buenos Aires and the City Zoological Garden of Buenos Aires on behalf of the hybrid of two different orangutan species, Sandra. AFADA sought the immediate release and relocation of Sandra to the primate sanctuary of Sorocaba, in the State of Sao Paulo in Brazil. AFADA argued that Sandra had been deprived illegitimately and arbitrarily of her freedom by the authorities of the zoo, and that her mental and physical health was at the time deeply deteriorated, with imminent risk of death. For the first time, basic legal rights were granted to an animal. In this case, Argentina’s Federal Chamber of Criminal Cassation ruled that animals are holders of basic rights. The Court stated that “from a dynamic and non-static legal interpretation, it is necessary to recognize [Sandra] an orangutan as a subject of rights, as non-human subjects (animals) are holders of rights, so it imposes her protection." | Case | ||
| DE - Exotic Pets - CHAPTER 72. POSSESSION OF MAMMALS OR REPTILES EXOTIC TO DELAWARE | 3 Del.C. § 7201 - 7203 | DE ST TI 3 § 7201 - 7203 | This Delaware law requires a permit to possess, sell, or import any non-native wild animal. No such permits will be granted for non-native venomous snakes. | Statute | |
| CA - Exotic pets - § 671. Importation, Transportation and Possession of Live Restricted Animals | 14 CA ADC s 671 | 14 CCR § 671 | California prohibits possession of enumerated species without a permit. Permits are not granted for private pet possession. | Administrative | |
| MS - Exotic Pets - Rule 32. Public Notice No. 3523.002; Dangerous Wildlife | MS ADC 40-2:8.3 | Miss. Admin. Code 40-2:8.3 | The following Mississippi regulations state that it is unlawful for any person to import, transfer, sell, purchase or possess any wild animal classified as inherently dangerous by law or regulation unless that person holds a permit or is exempt from holding a permit; these regulations, therefore, also indicate the requirements that must be met in order to obtain either a permit or an exemption. A violation of this act is a Class I violation and any person who has been convicted of a Class I violation shall be fined anywhere between $2,000.00 and $5,000.00, and shall be imprisoned in the county jail for 5 days. The person must also forfeit all hunting, trapping, and fishing privileges for a period of not less than 12 consecutive months from the date of conviction. Additionally, the regulations make provisions about how a wild animal shall be seized when these provisions have been violated. | Administrative | |
| CA - Entertainment - Title 4. Motion Pictures (use of animals) | West's Ann. Cal. Civ. Code § 3504 - 3508.2 | CA CIVIL § 3504 - 3508.2 | This section of laws provides that it is a nuisance to exhibit a motion picture that depicts any intentional killing of, or cruelty to, a human being or an animal where such intentional killing of, or cruelty to, a human being or an animal actually occurred in the production of the motion picture for the purpose of such production created after January 1, 1979. An action may be brought to abate and prevent the nuisance by the relevant county's district attorney or the California Attorney General. Any violation or disobedience of an injunction or order expressly provided for by this title is punishable as a contempt of court by a fine of not less than two hundred dollars ($200) nor more than one thousand dollars ($1,000). | Statute | |
| ND - Livestock - State Board of Animal Health | NDCC 36-01-00.1 - 36 | ND ST 36-01-00.1 - ND ST 36-01-36 | This Chapter of North Dakota laws deals with the state board of animal health, state veterinarian, and special provisions for keeping certain non-traditional livestock. Section 36-01-08.2 states that any person who keeps a mountain lion, wolf, or wolf hybrid in captivity must obtain an identification number from the state board. Section 36-01-08.4 also provides that a person may not keep a skunk or raccoon in captivity, and that the state board must adopt rules concerning the keeping of a primate, wolf, or wolf-hybrid in captivity. The remainder of the chapter deals primary with infectious disease control in livestock, although section 36-01-31 contains a ban on the keeping of a live venomous reptile. | Statute |