Results
Displaying 71 - 80 of 369
| Title | Citation | Alternate Citation | Agency Citation | Summary | Type |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| TX - Exotic pets - Subchapter A. Regulation of Keeping of Wild Animals | V. T. C. A., Local Government Code § 240.001 - 004 | TX LOCAL GOVT § 240.001 - 004 | In this subchapter, wild animal is defined as a nondomestic animal that the commissioners court of a county determines is dangerous and is in need of control in that county. The commissioners court of a county by order may prohibit or regulate the keeping of a wild animal in the county. A person commits a Class C misdemeanor if the person violates an order adopted under this subchapter and the order defines the violation as an offense. | Statute | |
| 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 | |
| MT - Cruelty - Consolidated Cruelty Statutes | MCA 45-8-209 - 211; 45-8- 217; 45-8-218; 7-23-4104 | MT ST 45-8-209 to 45-8-211;45-8- 217; 45-8-218; 7-23-4104 | This section comprises Montana's anti-cruelty and dogfighting laws. A person commits the offense of cruelty to animals if he or she knowingly or negligently subjects an animal to mistreatment or neglect; fails to provide an animal in the person's custody with food and water of sufficient quantity or minimum protection for the animal from adverse weather conditions; or, in cases of immediate, obvious, serious illness or injury, fails to provide licensed veterinary or other appropriate medical care. Animal abandonment of a "helpless animal" or abandoning any animal on any highway, railroad, or in any other place where it may suffer is also considered cruelty. A first conviction results in a possible $1,000/1 year imprisonment with graduating penalty enhancements for subsequent convictions. This section does not prohibit a person humanely destroying an animal for just cause or the use of commonly accepted agricultural and livestock practices on livestock (among other things). Section 217 defines aggravated cruelty as either knowingly or purposely killing or inflicting cruelty to an animal with the purpose of terrifying, torturing, or mutilating the animal, or inflicting cruelty to animals on a collection, kennel, or herd of 10 or more animals. | Statute | |
| WV - Scientific research - § 20-2-50. Permit to hunt, kill, etc., wildlife for scientific or propagation purposes | W. Va. Code, § 20-2-50 | WV ST § 20-2-50 | Under this West Virginia law, the director may issue a permit to a person to hunt, kill, take, capture or maintain in captivity wildlife exclusively for scientific purposes, but not for any commercial purposes. | Statute | |
| NV - Endangered Species - Protection and Propagation of Native Fauna (Chapter 503) | N. R. S. 503.584 - 503.589 | NV ST 503.584 - 503.589 | These statutes provide that the Legislature of Nevada has an interest in protecting native species from extinction and sets forth the authority to establish programs to protect designated species. However, if a native species is found to be destructive under the statute, the statute provides for removal if appropriate. Under statute, the ultimate responsibility for management rests with the governor for reviewing state programs and entering into interstate and federal agreements. | Statute | |
| HI - Importation, quarantine - Chapter 150A. Plant and Non-Domestic Animal Quarantine and Microorganism Import | H R S § 150A-5 - 15 | HI ST § 150A-5 - § 150A-15 | These laws concern the importation of animals, plants, and microorganisms into the State of Hawaii. | Statute | |
| MI - Livestock - Chapter 287. Animal Industry. Animal Industry Act | M. C. L. A. 287.701 - 747 | MI ST 287.701 - 747 | This Michigan act is known as the "Animal Industry Act." The act is intended to protect the health, safety, and welfare of humans and animals, by requiring disease testing of imported animals, certification, and reporting of infected animals. A newly amended section (287.746) also concerns the tethering or confinement of animals such as pregnant sows and veal calves in manners that restrict lying, standing, fully extending limbs, or turning freely. | Statute | |
| MT - Exotic Pets - Sub-chapter 22. Exotic Wildlife | Mont.Admin.R. 12.6.2201 - 2230 | MT ADC 12.6.2201 - 2230 | These Montana regulations provide the requirements for care and housing of exotic wildlife. The list of noncontrolled species and prohibited species is also provided. | Administrative | |
| Article 70 of CPLR for a Writ of Habeas Corpus, The Nonhuman Rights Project, Inc. ex rel. Hercules and Leo v. Stanley | 49 Misc. 3d 746 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 2015) | 2015 WL 4612340 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., 2015) | Petitioner brought this proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 70 and under the common law for a writ of habeas corpus on behalf of Hercules and Leo, two chimpanzees in the custody of respondent State University of New York at Stony Brook. It sought an order directing respondents to demonstrate the basis for detaining Hercules and Leo, and an order directing their release and transfer to a sanctuary in Florida. Respondents opposed the petition and cross moved to change venue. While the Supreme Court of New York County found that neither CPLR 7002(b)(3) nor CPLR 7004(c) required a change of venue to Suffolk County; that the petitioner had standing to bring the case; and that prior proceedings did not bar this case from being heard, the substance of the petition required a finding as to whether a chimpanzee was a legal person entitled to bring a writ of habeas corpus. Since the Court found it was bound by the Third Department in People ex rel Nonhuman Rights Project, Inc. v. Lavery, which ruled that chimpanzees were not “legal persons” entitled to the rights and protections afforded by a writ of habeas corpus, it denied the habeas corpus petition and dismissed the proceeding. | Case | |
| In Defense of Animals v. National Institutes of Health | 543 F.Supp.2d 70 (D.C.C., 2008) |
This FOIA case was brought against the National Institutes of Health ("NIH") by In Defense of Animals (“IDA”) seeking information related to approximately 260 chimpanzees located as the Alamogordo Primate Facility (“APF”) in New Mexico. Before the court now is NIH's Motion for Partial Reconsideration as to the release of records. This Court rejected NIH’s arguments that the records are not “agency records” because they belong to NIH's contractor, Charles River Laboratories, Inc. (“CRL”), a publicly held animal research company. Also, the Court was equally unconvinced that the information requested here is “essentially a blueprint of the APF facility,” and that release of such information presents a security risk to the facility. |
Case |