Results
Displaying 1 - 10 of 369
| Title | Citation | Alternate Citation | Agency Citation | Summary | Type |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| DE - Endangered Species - CHAPTER 6. ENDANGERED SPECIES | 7 Del.C. § 601 - 605 | DE ST TI 7 § 601 - 605 | Delaware prohibits the importation, transportation, possession, or sale of any part, hide or an endangered species of fish or wildlife. Delaware also prohibits the intent to import, transport, or sell any part or hide of an endangered species. The only lawful way to take an endangered species is by a license or permit from the Division of Fish and Wildlife and violation of this statute is a class A environmental misdemeanor. | Statute | |
| AK - Cruelty - Consolidated Cruelty Statutes | AS § 03.55.100 - 190; AS § 11.61.140 - 145 | AK ST § 03.55.100 - 190; AK ST § 11.61.140 - 145 | This section comprises Alaska's anti-cruelty and animal fighting laws, which were amended in 2010. A person commits cruelty to animals if the person: knowingly inflicts severe and prolonged physical pain or suffering on an animal; with criminal negligence, fails to care for an animal and, as a result, causes the death of the animal or causes severe physical pain or prolonged suffering to the animal; kills or injures an animal by the use of a decompression chamber; intentionally kills or injures a pet or livestock by the use of poison; knowingly kills or injures an animal with the intent to intimidate, threaten, or terrorize another person; or knowingly engages in sexual conduct with an animal, films such activity, induces such activity, or intentionally permits this to occur on premises under the person's control. The court may also prohibit or limit the defendant's ownership, possession, or custody of animals for up to 10 years for convictions under this section. | Statute | |
| AL- Wildlife - 220-2-.154. Standards Of Care For Wildlife Used For Public Exhibition Purposes. | AL ADC 220-2-.154 | Ala. Admin. Code r. 220-2-.154 | This regulation classifies all species of wildlife into three separate categories (Class I, Class II, and Class III) and creates a permit requirement for anyone wishing to exhibit those animals. It also includes various rules governing the housing, care, and display of wildlife possessed for public exhibition purposes. | Administrative | |
| KY - Cruelty - Consolidated Cruelty Statutes | KRS § 525.125 - 137; KRS § 436.600 - 610 | KY ST § 525.125 - 137; KY ST § 436.600 - .610 | These Kentucky statutes represent the state's anti-cruelty and animal fighting provisions. Under the law, animal cruelty in the first-degree (a class D felony) occurs when a person causes four-legged animals to fight for pleasure or profit. Exclusions under this section include, among others, the killing of animals when hunting, fishing, or trapping; as incident to the processing as food or for other commercial purposes; or for veterinary, agricultural, spaying or neutering, or cosmetic purposes. | Statute | |
| WY - Scientific permits - Chapter 33. Regulation Governing Issuance of Scientific Research | WY ADC GAME POSS Ch. 33 s 1 - 9 | WY Rules and Regulations GAME POSS Ch. 33 s 1- 9 | The purpose of this regulation is to govern and regulate the issuance of permits to take, capture, handle, and transport Wyoming wildlife for scientific research, educational or special purposes. Such permits may be issued to persons, educational institutions, or governmental entities when the Wyoming Game and Fish Department determines the scientific research, educational, or special purposes are beneficial to wildlife, the department or the public. | Administrative | |
| WV - Cruelty - Consolidated Cruelty Statutes | W. Va. Code, § 7-10-1 to 5; W. Va. Code, § 61-8-19 to 23; W. Va. Code, § 19-33-1 - 5 | WV ST § 7-10-1 to 5; WV ST § 61-8-19 to 23; WV ST § 19-33-1 - 5 | These West Virginia statutes comprise the state's anti-cruelty and animal fighting provisions. If any person cruelly mistreats, abandons or withholds proper sustenance, including food, water, shelter or medical treatment, necessary to sustain normal health and fitness or to end suffering or abandons any animal to die, or uses, trains or possesses any domesticated animal for the purpose of seizing, detaining or maltreating any other domesticated animal, he or she is guilty of a misdemeanor. If any person intentionally tortures or maliciously kills an animal, or causes, procures or authorizes any other person to torture or maliciously kill an animal, he or she is guilty of a felony. The provisions of this section do not apply to lawful acts of hunting, fishing, trapping or animal training or farm livestock, poultry, gaming fowl or wildlife kept in private or licensed game farms if kept and maintained according to usual and accepted standards of livestock, poultry, gaming fowl or wildlife or game farm production and management. The section also prohibits animal fighting, making it a felony if the animal is a dog or other fur-bearing animal ("canine, feline, porcine, bovine, or equine species whether wild or domesticated"), and a misdemeanor if not (i.e., cockfighting). | Statute | |
| 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 | |
| US - AWA - Subpart D. Specifications/Standards for Nonhuman Primates | 9 C.F.R. § 3.75 to .92 | This portion of the AWA regulations contains the humane care provisions for non-human primates. Included are requirements for housing facilities, primary enclosures, provisions for psychological well-being, feeding, watering, sanitization, employee requirements, and transportation standards. | Administrative | ||
| MN - Endangered Species - Natural Resources (Ch. 83A-84). Chapter 84. Department of Natural Resources | M. S. A. §§ 84.0895, 84.944, 97A.245, 97A.501 | MN ST § 84.0895, 84.944, 97A.245, 97A.501 | This statute protects endangered and threatened species in Minnesota, as defined in the statute. Under the law, a person may not take, import, transport, or sell any portion of an endangered species of wild animal or plant, or sell or possess with intent to sell an article made with any part of the skin, hide, or parts of an endangered species of wild animal or plant. Violation of the statute is a misdemeanor. | Statute | |
| Animal Legal Defense Fund; Animal Welfare Institute; Valerie Buchanan; Jane Garrison; Nancy Megna, plaintiffs-appellants v. Ann | In this federal action, plaintiffs (ALDF, the AWI, and three individuals) challenged the USDA's decision not to adopt a Draft Policy that would have provided guidance to zoos, research facilities, and other regulated entities in how to ensure the psychological well-being of on-human primates in order to comply with the Animal Welfare Act. While the district court found that the USDA's decision did not constitute a reviewable final agency decision, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals found that the lower court did indeed have authority under the Administrative Procedures Act to review the agency's decision not to create a policy. On June 4, 2007, the Court vacated the previous opinion and dismissed the appeal with prejudice. Two judges wrote separate opinions, concurring and dissenting in part. | Pleading |