Results
| Title | Citation | Alternate Citation | Agency Citation | Summary | Type |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| US - Endangered - Petition to List the Northwest Atlantic DPS of the Thorny Skate | Submitted by the Animal Welfare Institute (AWI) | The Animal Welfare Institute and Defenders of Wildlife (Petitioners) hereby petition the Secretary of Commerce, the Administrator of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, and the Assistant Administrator for Fisheries of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, to list the Northwest Atlantic population of thorny skate (Amblyraja radiata) as an endangered or threatened Distinct Population Segment (DPS), pursuant to the Endangered Species Act (ESA) (16 U.S.C. § 1531–44). In the alternative, Petitioners request NMFS to list a U.S. DPS of the thorny skate as a threatened or endangered species. In addition, Petitioners seek the designation of critical habitat concurrently with any listing of the thorny skate, as authorized by statute. | Administrative | ||
| Uganda - Cruelty - Chapter 220 Animal Act | Consolidation of 1988 of Ordinance No. 25 of 1957 as amended last by L.N. No. 224 of 1962 | This Uganda act, in English, provides provisions for the offense of animal cruelty. The act also allows the court to order the destruction of an animal when the animal's owner has been convicted of an offense of animal cruelty if the court is satisfied it would be cruel to keep the animal alive. The court may also deprive a person convicted of cruelty ownership of the animal and order for the animal to be disposed as it thinks fit. It is also illegal to permit a diseased animal to be at large in public places; a court may also order a diseased animal at large in any public place to be destroyed. No appeal can be made against either order of destruction. The sale of poisoned grain that is to be used as feeding stuff is also an offence. Also included in this act are provisions about experiments. | Statute | ||
| AZ - Endangered, nongame - Illegal Taking or Wounding of Wildlife | A. R. S. § 17-268, § 17-296, § 17-298, § 17-298.01, § 17-314, § 17-402 - 407 | AZ ST § 17-268, § 17-296, § 17-298, § 17-298.01, § 17-314, § 17-401 | Arizona assesses a monetary civil penalty for the possession or taking of listed species of wildlife and endangered/nongame wildlife (including eagles). This fine goes to the state wildlife theft prevention fund and is in addition to any other fine or penalty assessed by law. | Statute | |
| Connecticut General Statutes: Chapter 338: Section 6619 | Conn. Gen. Stat. § 6619 (1918) | Section 6619 of Chapter 338 from the 1918 General Laws of Connecticut covers information, procedure and bail. Specifically, the statute states the circumstances for reach a search warrant will be issued. | Statute | ||
| San Jose Charter of Hells Angels Motorcycle Club v. City of San Jose | 402 F.3d 962 (C.A.9 (Cal.),2005) | 05 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 2853, 2005 Daily Journal D.A.R. 3920 |
In this civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, Defendants-Appellants, seven San Jose City Police Officers and Deputy Sheriff Linderman, appeal from an order of the district court denying in part their motions for qualified immunity. This action arises out of the simultaneous execution of search warrants at the residences of members of the Hells Angels, and at the Hells Angels clubhouse on January 21, 1998. While executing search warrants at two plaintiffs' residences, the officers shot a total of three dogs. This court held that the shooting of the dogs at the Vieira and Souza residences was an unreasonable seizure, and an unreasonable execution of the search warrants, in violation of the Fourth Amendment. Exigent circumstances did not exist at either residence, as the officers had a week to consider the options and tactics available for an encounter with the dogs. The unlawfulness of the officers' conduct would have been apparent to a reasonable officer at the time the officers planned for serving the search warrants. |
Case | |
| U.S. v. Tomono | 143 F.3d 1401 (11th Cir. 1998) |
Kei Tomono pleaded guilty to violations of the Lacey Act, 16 U.S.C. §§ 3372(a)(1) & 3373(d)(1)(B), and the federal anti-smuggling statute, 18 U.S.C. § 545, in connection with his illegal importation of reptiles. At sentencing, the district court granted a three-level downward departure for what it termed "cultural differences." The court held that "cultural differences" were not significant enough to remove this case from the body of cases contemplated by the Sentencing Guidelines so as to allow for downward departure. |
Case | ||
| IN - Animal Testing - THE BREEDING OF AND EXPERIMENTS ON ANIMALS (CONTROL AND SUPERVISION) RULES, 1998 | 1843. G.S.R. 1074(E), dated 15th December, 1998 | The Rules, drafted under the powers conferred by section (1)(1-A) and (2) of Section 17 of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960, regulate the breeding and testing of animals in laboratories. It sets up an 'Institutional Animal Ethics Committee' that ensures the performance of experiments of animals in an establishment in a humane manner. The Rules specify the conditions that breeders are allowed to raise these animals in for testing, and the manner in which these animals must be treated in establishments where they are used for testing. | Statute | ||
| Journals Available from the U.S. and the World |
Journal of Animal and Natural Resource Law (Michigan State University College of Law)
|
Policy | |||
| PA - Cruelty - De protección a los animales domésticos | 2011 De protección a los animales domésticos |
This document provides a link to De protección a los animales domésticos (.pdf). |
Statute | ||
| Tilikum, Katina, Corky, Kasatka, and Ulises, Plaintiffs, by their Next Friends, People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, Inc | In this case of first impression, five wild-captured orcas named Tilikum, Katina, Corky, Kasatka, and Ulises (collectively, the “Plaintiffs”), seek a declaration that they are held by the Defendants in violation of Section One of the Thirteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States, which prohibits slavery and involuntary servitude. Plaintiffs were forcibly taken from their families and natural habitats, are held captive at SeaWorld San Diego and SeaWorld Orlando, denied everything that is natural to them, subjected to artificial insemination or sperm collection to breed performers for Defendants’ shows, and forced to perform, all for Defendants’ profit. As such, Plaintiffs are held in slavery and involuntary servitude. Plaintiffs also seek an injunction freeing them from Defendants’ bondage and placing them in a habitat suited to their individual needs and best interests. | Pleading |
