Results
Displaying 1 - 10 of 368
| Title | Citation | Alternate Citation | Agency Citation | Summary | Type |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| United States of America v. Victor Bernal and Eduardo Berges | 90 F.3d 465 (11th Cir. 1996) |
Victor Bernal and Eduardo Berges were convicted of various crimes in connection with an attempt to export two endangered primates--an orangutan and a gorilla--from the United States to Mexico in violation of the Lacey Act Amendments of 1981 and the Endangered Species Act of 1973. While the main issue before the court was a downward departure in sentencing guidelines, the court found the purpose of the Lacey Act is protect those species whose continued existence is presently threatened by gradually drying up international market for endangered species, thus reducing the poaching of those species in their native countries. |
Case | ||
| 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 | |
| PA - Permits - Chapter 29. Special Licenses and Permits. Subchapter A. General Provisions. | 34 Pa.C.S.A. § 2901 - 2908 | PA ST 34 Pa.C.S.A. § 2901 - 2908 | This chapter of Pennsylvania laws allows the commission to issue permits to take wildlife. Among the permit categories include endangered or threatened species permits, wildlife menagerie, wildlife (exotic) dealer, and wildlife (exotic) possession permits. It is unlawful to exercise any of the privileges granted by a permit issued under this title without first securing the required permit. | Statute | |
| 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 | ||
| FL - Importation - Chapter 5C-30. Enforcement and Penalties | Rule 5C-30.001 - 004, F.A.C. | Fla. Admin. Code r. 5C-30.001 - 004 | This set of statutes establishes the procedures for the inspection and quarantine of imported animals and sets penalties for violations of the state's animal import laws. | Administrative | |
| KS - Exotic Pets - 115-20-3 Exotic Wildlife; Possession, Sale and Requirements. | KS ADC 115-20-3 | K.A.R. 115-20-3 | This regulation covers the importation, possession, and sale of exotic wildlife. | Administrative | |
| CA - Abandonment - § 597f. Failure to care for animals; duty of peace or humane officers; | West's Ann. Cal. Penal Code § 597f (repealed) | CA PENAL § 597f | (Repealed in 2022). Every owner of any animal, who permits the animal to be without proper care and attention, shall, on conviction, be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor. It shall be the duty of any peace officer, officer of the humane society, or officer of a pound or animal regulation department of a public agency, to take possession of the animal so abandoned or neglected and care for the animal until it is redeemed by the owner. Every sick, disabled, infirm, or crippled animal, except a dog or cat, may, if after due search no owner can be found therefor, be killed by the officer. all injured cats and dogs found without their owners in a public place directly to a veterinarian known by the officer or agency to be a veterinarian that ordinarily treats dogs and cats for a determination of whether the animal shall be immediately and humanely destroyed or shall be hospitalized under proper care and given emergency treatment. | Statute | |
| People ex rel. Nonhuman Rights Project, Inc. v. Lavery | 2014 WL 6802767 (N.Y. App. Div. Dec. 4, 2014) | 2014 N.Y. Slip Op. 08531 | This case is an appeal from a Supreme Court judgment denying petitioner's application for an order to show cause to commence a CPLR article 70 proceeding. At issue is the legal status of a chimpanzee named Tommy who is being kept on respondents' property. Petitioners filed a habeas corpus proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 70 on the ground that Tommy was being unlawfully detained by respondents. They offered support via affidavits of experts that chimpanzee have the requisite characteristics sufficient for a court to consider them "persons" to obtain personal autonomy and freedom from unlawful detention. The Court of Appeals here is presented with the novel question on whether a chimpanzee is a legal person entitled to the rights and protections afforded by the writ of habeas corpus. In rejecting this designation, the Court relied on the fact that chimpanzees cannot bear any legal responsibilities or social duties. As such, the Court found it "inappropriate to confer upon chimpanzees the legal rights . . . that have been afforded to human beings." | Case | |
| IA - Pet Shop - Chapter 162. Care of Animals in Commercial Establishments. | I. C. A. § 162.1 to 25 | IA ST § 162.1 to 25 | The purpose of this chapter is to insure that all dogs and cats handled by boarding kennels, commercial kennels, commercial breeders, dealers, and public auctions are provided with humane care and treatment by regulating the transportation, sale, purchase, housing, care, handling, and treatment of such animals. | Statute | |
| PA - Exotic Pets - Chapter 137. Wildlife | 58 PA ADC § 137.1 - 35 | 58 Pa. Code § 137.1 to .35 | This set of administrative regulations prohibits the importation, possession, selling, offering for sale or release of certain species such as lynx, bobcat, coyote, wolf, bears, raccoons, nutria, skunks, all families of nonhuman primates, certain birds, game taken from the wild, and game or wildlife held in captivity. Exemptions includes zoos and circuses. A person wishing to import lawfully acquired wildlife, or parts thereof, shall first obtain an importation permit from the Commission. Another section makes it unlawful for a person to possess live wildlife taken from a wild state subject to certain exceptions. | Administrative |