Results
Displaying 61 - 70 of 369
| Title | Citation | Alternate Citation | Agency Citation | Summary | Type |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| OH - Exotic - Chapter 935. Dangerous Wild Animals and Restricted Snakes | R.C. § 935.01 - .99 | OH ST § 935.01 - .99 | On June 5, 2012, Ohio governor Kasich signed the "Dangerous Wild Animal Act" into law. Under this new section, no person shall possess a dangerous wild animal on or after January 1, 2014 unless he or she is authorized under an unexpired wildlife shelter/propagation permit or other exception. Dangerous wild animals include big cats, some smaller exotic cats, bears, elephants, hyenas, gray wolves, alligators, crocodiles and nonhuman primates other than lemurs. Except as provided, no person shall acquire, buy, sell, trade, or transfer possession or ownership of a dangerous wild animal on or after the effective date of this section. | Statute | |
| MN - Exotic pet - 346.155. Possessing regulated animals | M. S. A. § 346.155 | MN ST § 346.155 | This Minnesota law defines "regulated animal" to mean all members of the Felidae family except the domestic cat, bears, and all non-human primates. Unless a person possessed a regulated animal on or before January 1, 2005, and came into compliance with AWA regulations, possession of the above-mentioned regulated animals is unlawful. A person who lawfully possessed a regulated animal before that date, must comply with registration, microchipping, fee, and inspection requirements. | Statute | |
| TN - Endangered Species - Nongame and Endangered or Threatened Wildlife Species Conservation Act of 1974 | T. C. A. § 70-8-101 to 112 | TN ST § 70-8-101 to 112 | These Tennessee statutes comprise the Tennessee Nongame and Endangered or Threatened Wildlife Species Conservation Act of 1974 and includes the legislative intent, definitions, and factors relevant to endangered species investigations. By statute, it is unlawful for any person to take, attempt to take, possess, transport, export, process, sell or offer for sale or ship nongame wildlife, or for any common or contract carrier knowingly to transport or receive for shipment nongame wildlife. Violation constitutes a Class B misdemeanor and incurs warrantless searches and seizure of the wildlife taken and the instrumentalities used in the taking. | Statute | |
| 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 | |
| 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 | |
| NH - Importation of Wildlife - Chapter Fis 800. The Importation, Possession and Use of All Wildlife | NH ADC FIS 803.01 - .14 | N.H. Code Admin. R. Fis 803.01 - .14 | These New Hampshire regulations require an importation permit for any controlled species that are imported into the state; these regulations also state that a permit is not required for a non-controlled species, which are listed in the regulations, and that a prohibited species, which are also listed in the regulations, cannot be imported into the state with or without a permit. The regulations also state the requirements for obtaining an importation permit, the provisions for importing certain species, the pathological standards for inspecting imported fish, and what needs to be included in the form to obtain an importation permit. | Administrative | |
| Habeas Corpus para Chimpanzé - Íntegra (portuguese) | Heron J. de Santana e Luciano R. Santana ajuizar ação nos termos do art. 5 °, LXVIII, Constituição do Brasil. E, art. 647, Código de Processo Penal. Os peticionários buscar a Grande Writ em nome de Suíça, Chimpanzé (nome científico Pan Troglodytes), que é um prisioneiro no Zoológico de Getúlio Vargas, para alívio de ato ilegal e abusivo perpetrado por o diretor da Secretaria de Governo para a Biodiversidade, Meio Ambiente e da Água Recursos. Este é o primeiro caso de considerar que um chimpanzé pode ser uma pessoa jurídica de vir perante o tribunal no âmbito de um pedido de Habeas Corpus. | Pleading | |||
| ALDF v. Glickman | 204 F.3d 229(2000) | 340 U.S.App.D.C. 191(2000) |
Animal welfare organization and individual plaintiffs brought action against United States Department of Agriculture (USDA), challenging regulations promulgated under Animal Welfare Act (AWA) to promote psychological well-being of nonhuman primates kept by exhibitors and researchers. The Court of Appeals held that: (1) regulations were valid, and (2) animal welfare organization did not have standing to raise procedural injury. Case discussed in topic: US Animal Welfare Act |
Case | |
| Nonhuman Rights Project, Inc. ex rel. Tommy v. Lavery | 152 A.D.3d 73, 54 N.Y.S.3d 392 (N.Y. App. Div. 2017) | 2017 WL 2471600 (N.Y. App. Div. June 8, 2017) | The Petitioners, including the Nonhuman Rights Project, Inc . filed two petitions for habeas corpus relief on behalf of Tommy and Kiko, two adult male chimpanzees. The petitions stated that chimpanzees are intelligent, have the ability to be trained by humans to be obedient to rules, and to fulfill certain duties and responsibilities. Therefore, chimpanzees should be afforded some of the same fundamental rights as humans which include entitlement to habeas relief. The Respondents, included Tommy’s owners, Circle L Trailer Sales, Inc. and its officers, as well as Kiko’s owners, the Primate Sanctuary, Inc. and its officers and directors. The Supreme Court, New York County, declined to extend habeas corpus relief to the chimpanzees. The Petitioners appealed. The Supreme Court, Appellate Division affirmed and held that:(1) the petitions were successive habeas proceedings which were not warranted or supported by any changed circumstances; (2) human-like characteristics of chimpanzees did not render them “persons” for purposes of habeas corpus relief; and (3) even if habeas relief was potentially available to chimpanzees, writ of habeas corpus did not lie on behalf of two chimpanzees at issue. | Case |