Results
Displaying 41 - 50 of 369
| Title | Citation | Alternate Citation | Agency Citation | Summary | Type |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| NH - Cruelty - Consolidated Cruelty Laws | N.H. Rev. Stat. § 644:8 - 644:8-g; N.H. Rev. Stat. § 437-B:1 | NH ST § 644:8 - 644:8-g; § 437-B:1 | These New Hampshire statutes provide the animals anti-cruelty and animal fighting provisions for the state. Included are general anti-cruelty laws for any animal (including domestic and wild animals), exhibitions of fighting animals, provisions for protection of animals riding in motor vehicles, restrictions related to docking the tail of a horse, provisions for the use of animals in science classes or fairs, laws against maiming or willfully interfering with police dogs or horses, laws related to the willful interference with organizations or projects involving animals, and provisions related to dogs riding in pick-up trucks. | Statute | |
| TX - Circus - Chapter 2152. Regulation of Circuses, Carnivals, and Zoos. | V. T. C. A., Occupations Code § 2152.001 - 202 (Repealed 2015) | TX OCC § 2152.001 - 202 | Note chapter repealed: Repealed by Acts 2015, 84th Leg., ch. 1 (S.B. 219), § 5.318(14), eff. April 2, 2015. This set of Texas laws concerns the regulation of carnivals, circuses, and zoos. However, circuses are specifically exempted from regulation if they are licensed by the USDA and if the circus provides proof of (mandatory) inspection at least once a year. "Circus" is defined as a commercial variety show featuring animal acts for public entertainment. In Texas, the Texas Board of Health must adopt standards for the operation of circuses, carnivals, and zoos that promote humane conditions for animals and protect the public health and safety. A person may not operate a circus, carnival, or zoo unless the person holds a license issued under this chapter for the circus, carnival, or zoo. A person who knowingly operates a circus without a license under this chapter commits a Class C misdemeanor. | 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 | |
| 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 | ||
| NE - Exotic pets - Chapter 37. Game and Parks. Article 4. Permits and Licenses. (B) Special Permits and Licenses. | Neb. Rev. St. § 37-477 to 37-482 | NE ST § 37-477 to 37-482 | This set of Nebraska laws provides that no person shall keep in captivity any wild bird or mammal that is either in need of conservation or listed as an endangered or threatened species. Further, no person shall keep in captivity in this state any wolf, any skunk, or any member of the families Felidae (except the domestic cat) and Ursidae (the bear family). Any person legally holding in captivity, on March 1, 1986, any such animal subject to the prohibition shall be allowed to keep the animal for the duration of its life. The section also outlines the legal requirements for obtaining and maintaining captive wildlife. | Statute | |
| VA - Cruelty - Consolidated Cruelty Statutes | Va. Code Ann. §§ 3.2-6500 - 6590; Va. Code Ann. § 18.2-361; § 18.2-144.1 | These Virginia statutes set forth Title 3.2, the Comprehensive Animal Care laws, which include the state's anti-cruelty and animal fighting provisions. For the purposes of Sec. 3.2-6570, the operative animal cruelty law, animal means any nonhuman vertebrate species including fish except those fish captured and killed or disposed of in a reasonable and customary manner. The section has a misdemeanor animal cruelty law as well as a felony provision related to torture or willful infliction of cruelty. The section requires companion animal owners to provide adequate care. | Statute | ||
| FL - Exotic Pets - Chapter 68A-6. Wildlife as Personal Pets | 68 FL ADC 68A-6.001 - 68A-6.0072 | Fla. Admin. Code r. 68A-6.001 - 68A-6.018 | Under these Florida administrative provisions, three separate classes of captive wildlife were created. Class I, the most regulated class, includes large primates, big cats, bears, elephants, and large reptiles among others. The regulations state that Class I wildlife shall not be possessed for personal use (unless obtained before August 1, 1980 and permitted). The permit requirements to keep listed wildlife in captivity are outlined in Sec. 68A-6.0022. | Administrative | |
| The Nonhuman Rights Project, Inc. on behalf of Tommy, Petitioners, v. Patrick C. Lavery, individually and as an officer of Circl |
This set of pleadings is from the Nonhuman Rights Project (NhRP). The NhRP filed the first-ever lawsuit on behalf of captive chimpanzees in New York. The suit includes a petition for a writ of habeas corpus, demanding that the chimps be released from private captivity to a sanctuary that is part of the North American Primate Sanctuary Alliance (NAPSA). In 2014, the petitioners sought review at the New York Court of Appeals. |
Pleading | |||
| Nonhuman Rights Project on behalf of Tommy and Kiko v. | 31 N.Y.3d 1054, 100 N.E.3d 846 (2018) | 2018 WL 2107087 (Mem), 2018 N.Y. Slip Op. 03309 | The petitioner, Nonhuman Rights Project brought this appeal on behalf of Tommy and Kiko, who are two captive chimpanzees. The chimpanzees had been confined by their owners in small cages within a warehouse and a cement storefront in a crowded residential area, respectively. Petitioner sought leave to appeal from an order of the Appellate Division, which affirmed two judgments of the Supreme Court declining to sign orders to show cause to grant the chimpanzees habeas relief. The lower courts based their denial of habeas corpus for the chimpanzees on the dictionary definition for "person." The term “person” tends to lean towards an entity that is recognized by law as having most of the rights and duties of a human. The Appellate Division also reasoned that chimpanzees are not considered people because they lack the capacity to bear legal duties or to be held legally accountable for their actions. As a counter, the Petitioner argued that the same can be said for human infants or comatose human adults, yet no one would say that it is improper to seek a writ of habeas corpus on behalf of one of them. The Appellate Division therefore based their denial on the fact that chimpanzees are not a member of the human species. In the instant action, Court of Appeals of New York denied the motion for leave to appeal. In the concurring opinion, Judge Fahey states that the better approach is not to ask whether a chimpanzee fits the definition of a person or whether it has the same rights and duties as a human being, but whether he or she has the right to liberty protected by habeas corpus. The concurring opinion also found that the Appellate Division erred by misreading the case it relied on and holding that a habeas corpus challenge cannot be used to seek transfer; a habeas corpus challenge can be used to seek a transfer to another facility. Although Judge Fahey recognizes that Chimpanzees share at least 96% of their DNA with humans and are autonomous, intelligent creatures, he concurred with the Appellate Division’s decision to deny leave to appeal. However, he ultimately questioned whether the Court was right to deny leave in the first instance. | Case | |
| NV - Cruelty - Consolidated Cruelty Statutes | N. R. S. 574.010 to 574.550; N.R.S. 202.487; N.R.S. 201.455 | NV ST 574.010 to 574.550; N.R.S. 202.487 | This comprehensive section comprises the Nevada anti-cruelty statutes. The section first empowers private prevention of cruelty to animals societies and outlines their powers and responsibilities, including the power to arrest. Under this section, "animal" does not include the human race, but includes every other living creature. Animal cruelty, as described in Section 574.100, prohibits the overdriving, overloading, torture, cruel beating or unjustifiable injuring, maiming, mutilation or killing of an animal, as well as the deprivation of necessary sustenance, food or drink. The first offense under this section is a misdemeanor with enhancement to a felony for a third or subsequent convictions. Animals fighting is also prohibited under the section, with enhanced sentences for subsequent convictions. Other specific crimes include mistreatment of dogs, abandonment of animals, poisoning (although the section does not prohibit the destruction of "noxious animals"), and basic requirements for the care of dogs and cats kept in kennels or sold by pounds or pet shops. | Statute |