Results
Displaying 91 - 100 of 6638
| Title | Citation | Alternate Citation | Agency Citation | Summary | Type |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| James S. Cable, Plaintiff v. Burrows, Defendant |
This California judgment awarded no money to plaintiff on his claims. |
Pleading | |||
| Re The International Fund for Animal Welfare (Australia) Pty Ltd and Ors and Minister for Environment and Heritage | (2006) 42 AAR 262 | [2006] AATA 94 |
Zoos in New South Wales and Victoria sought to import five Asian elephants. After an initial hearing, further evidence was sought in relation to the condition and nature of the facilities at the zoos. The Tribunal decided that the importation of the elephants should be in accordance with a permit issued under s 303CG of the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (Cth). |
Case | |
| Chile - Fishing - Ley 430, 1991 | Ley 430, 1991 | This is the general law of fisheries and aquaculture. It establishes the guidelines for the preservation of hydrological resources, extractive fishing activities, and research activities in terrestrial waters, sea beaches, inland waters, territorial seas, exclusive economic zones, and adjacent areas. This law also regulates transformation and processing fishing activities and storage, transportation, or commercialization of hydro-biological resources. | Statute | ||
| TX - Dog - Consolidated Dog Laws | V.T.C.A., Health & Safety Code § 821.101 - 104; 822.001 - 100; § 823.001 - 009; § 824.001 - 004; § 826.001 - 055; § 828.001 - 015; V. T. C. A., Parks & Wildlife Code § 62.0065; § 62.016 | TX HEALTH & S § 821.101 - 104; 822.001 - 100; § 823.001 - 009; § 826.001 - 055; § 828.001 - 015; TX PARKS & WILD § 62.0065 ; § 62.016 | These Texas statutes comprise the state's dog laws. Among the provisions include the dangerous dog laws, registration and vaccination requirements, and sterilization laws. | Statute | |
| NV - Hunting, exotics - 504.295. Prohibited acts; regulations; licenses; inapplicability to alternative livestock | N. R. S. 504.295 | NV ST 504.295 | Under this Nevada statute, unless otherwise provided by statute no person may possess any live wildlife unless he is licensed by the division to do so, capture live wildlife in this state to stock a commercial or noncommercial wildlife facility, or possess or release from confinement any mammal for the purposes of hunting. However, the provisions of this section do not apply to alternative livestock and products made therefrom. | Statute | |
| CA - San Mateo - Title 6 - ANIMALS | Title 6 - ANIMALS, Sections 6.04.010 to 6.20.160 |
These are the ordinances in San Mateo, California that deal with animals. The laws regulate animal control, exotic animals, spaying, neutering, and breeding, kennels, catteries, and animal fanciers permits.
|
Local Ordinance | ||
| NY - Rehabilitators, wildlife - Part 184. Wildlife Rehabilitators. | 6 NY ADC 184.1 - 7 | 6 NYCRR 184.1 - 7 | These New York regulations concern the qualifications for appointment as a state wildlife rehabilitator. Section 184.1 first states that, "The purpose of this Part is to establish a specially trained group of individuals, collectively called wildlife rehabilitators, to provide for the care of injured and debilitated wildlife so that such wildlife may be returned to the wild." Under the chapter, "wildlife rehabilitation" means the practice of providing care for injured or debilitated wildlife, including their capture, housing, feeding, emergency treatment and release to the wild. | Administrative | |
| Horen v. Commonwealth | 479 S.E. 2d 553 (Va. 1997) |
Native American medicine woman and her husband convicted of illegally possessing wild bird feathers in violation of Virginia statute. The Virginia Court of Appeals held that the statute violates RFRA because it does not provide a scheme to possess feathers for religious purposes, as it does for other purposes. Thus, the statute was not religiously neutral because it discriminated based on content and the state did not employ the least restrictive means in advancing its compelling interest. For further discussion on the federal Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act, see Detailed Discussion of Eagle Act . |
Case | ||
| CA - Emergency - § 1797.10. Emergency medical transport for police dog; pilot project; | West's Ann. Cal. Health & Safety Code § 1797.10, § 1799.109 | Section 1799.109, first makes legislative findings on the importance of dogs and cats to Californians and that some first responder agencies have been providing stabilizing, life-saving emergency care to dogs and cats, which violates the Veterinary Medicine Practice Act. This new law allows an emergency responder to provide basic first aid to dogs and cats to the extent that the provision of that care is not prohibited by the responder's employer. The responder is not subject to criminal prosecution under the prohibitions of the Veterinary Medicine Practice Act. Basic first aid includes things like administering oxygen, manually clearing an upper airway, controlling a hemorrhage with direct pressure, and bandaging to stop bleeding. This section does not impose a duty or obligation upon an emergency responder or any other person to transport or provide care to an injured pet or other domesticated animal during an emergency nor does it require emergency services through a 911 call for dogs or cats. | Statute | ||
| Hauser v. Ventura County Board of Supervisors | 229 Cal.Rptr.3d 159 (Cal. Ct. App., 2018) | 20 Cal.App.5th 572, 18 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 1594 (Cal. Ct. App. Feb. 20, 2018), 2018 WL 94788718 (Cal. Ct. App., 2018) | The plaintiff in this case applied for a conditional use permit (CUP) to keep up to five tigers on her property, but the county planning commission and board of supervisors denied her application. In her application, plaintiff indicates that the project would include three tiger enclosures, a 13,500-square-foot arena with a roof over 14 feet in height at its highest point, with the area surrounded by an eight-foot-high chain link fence encompassing over seven acres. The captive tigers would be used in the entertainment industry: movie sets, television commercials, and still photography. In denying the application, the Board found that the plaintiff failed to prove two elements necessary for a CUP: the project is compatible with the planned uses in the general area, and the project is not detrimental to the public interest, health, safety or welfare. The court noted that plaintiff bears the burden of demonstrating her entitlement to the permit. In fact, the court noted that while plaintiff claims "an unblemished safety record," she submitted videos showing tigers "roaming freely in the backyard of her Beverly Hills home" and tigers posing with plaintiff and her sister on the beach. The court observed that, "[h]er well-intentioned desire to own [the tigers] does not trump her neighbors' right to safety and peace of mind." The judgment of the lower court was affirmed. | Case |