Results
Displaying 101 - 110 of 369
| Title | Citation | Alternate Citation | Agency Citation | Summary | Type |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ZOOLOGICAL SOCIETY OF CINCINNATI v. THE GORILLA FOUNDATION | Slip Copy, 2019 WL 414971 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 1, 2019) | In 1991, the plaintiff, Zoological Society of Cincinnati, transferred a western lowland Gorilla named Ndume who had been living at the Zoo to The Gorilla Foundation (TGF) in Northern California. Ndume was sent to TGF in hopes that he and another gorilla there, named Koko, would mate and produce offspring. That never happened. In 2015, the Zoo and TGF entered into a new written agreement which expressly superseded any prior agreements. The agreement provided that upon the death of Koko, Ndume was to be placed at an institution that is accredited by the Association of Zoos and Aquariums (AZA). TGF is not an AZA accredited institution. KoKo died and the Zoo now wants to transfer Ndume back to the zoo. TGF has not made arrangements for a transfer to be carried out. The Zoo brought this suit seeking specific enforcement of the 2015 agreement and contends that it is entitled to summary judgment in its favor. TGF argued that the agreement was illegal and unenforceable because the transfer would harm Ndume. TGF identified a number of potential risks, particularly, that Ndume has a Balantidium Coli infection. TGF contended that stress could trigger an outbreak which could be fatal. The court was unpersuaded and stated that TGF signed the 2015 agreement less than 3 years before the present dispute arose and that all of the circumstances that TGF contends makes compliance with the agreement risky existed when the agreement was negotiated. TGF also contended that the agreement is impracticable due to unreasonable (non-monetary) costs. However, the Court again stated that TGF knew these facts and circumstances when it entered into the agreement. The Court granted the Zoo's motion for summary judgment and denied TGF's request for a continuance to permit it to take discovery. The parties were ordered to confer and attempt to reach a consensus on as many aspects of the protocol for transporting Ndume to the Zoo as possible. If within 30 days of the date of the order the parties cannot reach a consensus, they will have to file a joint statement setting out any issues on which they have reached a stalemate. | Case | ||
| 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 | |
| Pruett v. Arizona | 606 F.Supp.2d 1065 (D.Ariz.,2009) | 21 A.D. Cases 1520 |
A diabetic woman in Arizona attempted to keep a chimpanzee as an assistance animal in spite of the state’s ape ban. Despite the state’s ban, the diabetic woman imported a chimpanzee with the intention of keeping him as a service animal, claiming that she was entitled to do so under the Federal Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA). In September of 2007, the chimpanzee’s owner sued the State of Arizona, the Game and Fish Commission, and the Director of the Game and Fish Department in federal court claiming that they had violated her rights under the federal disability laws. According to the plaintiff, the ADA requires the state to make “reasonable accommodations” for disabled individuals; and in her case this meant the state must waive its ban on possessing “restricted” apes so that she can keep a chimpanzee in her home as a service animal. The District Court found that the plaintiff’s chimpanzee is “unnecessary” and “inadequate” to meet her disability-related needs and the animal is not a “reasonable” accommodation under the ADA because he threatens the health and safety of the community. |
Case | |
| CA - Circus - § 25989.1. Notice to animal control services agency of performances to be conducted | West's Ann. Cal. Health & Safety Code § 25989.1 | CA HLTH & S § 25989.1 | This California section provides that any traveling circus or carnival must notify entity that provides animal control services for a city, county, or city and county in which the traveling circus or carnival intends to perform of its intent to perform within that jurisdiction at least 14 days prior to the first performance in that city, county, or city and county. Violation results in a fine of $500 - 2,000 for a first violation, and $1,500 - 5,000 for any subsequent violation. | Statute | |
| NC - Commerce - Chapter 113. Conservation and Development. | N.C.G.S.A. § 113-294 | NC ST § 113-294 | North Carolina law makes it a Class 2 misdemeanor to sell, possess for sale, or buy any wildlife. Further, the law specifically makes it a greater transgression (a Class 1 misdemeanor) to unlawfully take, possess, transport, sell, or buy any dead or alive bald or golden eagle, nest or egg. The taking of other animals listed like bears and cougars also incurs greater penalty. | Statute | |
| 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 | |
| VT - Endangered Species - Chapter 123. Protection of Endangered Species | 10 V.S.A. § 5401 - 10 | VT ST T 10 § 5401 - 10 | These Vermont statutes set out the state's endangered species provisions, including the related definitions, rules for listing species, and regulations for establishing the committees. Violation of the provisions against taking incur criminal enforcement and restitution. Interestingly, there is a provision that provides for the location of listed endangered species to be kept confidential. | Statute | |
| WI - Importation - Wildlife, Chapter 10. Animal Diseases and Movement. | Wis. Adm. Code s ATCP 10.01 - 10.09; 10.80 - 10.85 | WI ADC s ATCP 10.01 - 10.09; 10.80 - 10.87 | In this set of Wisconsin regulations, "wild animal" does not include a domestic animal identified in s. ATCP 10.02 (livestock, poultry, and other domestic animals). The majority of the regulations here concern disease detection, inoculation, and prevention in domestic herds. However, a person who imports an animal must comply with importing requirements including obtaining a permit under ATCP 10.07. Importation of specific species (dog, cats, exotic ruminants, camelids, elephants, etc.) are covered in 10.80 - 10.86. | Administrative | |
| 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 | |
| MS - Endangered Species - Chapter 5. Nongame and Endangered Species Conservation Act | Miss. Code Ann. § 49-5-101 to 49-5-119 | MS ST §§ 49-5-101 to 49-5-119 | These Mississippi statutes provide the short title for the Nongame and Endangered Species Conservation Act, the definitions for the Act, the legislative findings, and the associated regulations of the Act. Violations under the Act may incur up to a $1,000 fine and/or one-year term of imprisonment as well as equipment confiscation. | Statute |