Results
| Title | Citation | Alternate Citation | Summary | Type |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| United States of America v. Kraft | 2005 WL 578313 (U.S., Dist. of Minn. 2005) |
A man was charged and convicted for violating the Lacey Act after illegally selling a tiger and grizzly bear. The trial court admitted the man's conversation into evidence in which he implicated himself in the illegal sale of a grizzly bear. The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court holding the man's conversation was not protected by the Sixth Amendment because it was made before there were specific charges against him for the illegal sale of the grizzly bear. |
Case | |
| Scotland - Dogs, microchip - The Microchipping of Dogs (Scotland) Regulations 2016 | 2016 No. 58 | Regulations providing for the compulsory microchipping of dogs and the recording of each dog’s identity and its keeper’s contact details on a database. | Statute | |
| US - Housing - FHA Definitions ( Section 705. Definitions) | 29 USC 705(20)(B) | Sec. 504 provides the federal definition of "disability" (part 9) and "handicap" (part 20). | Statute | |
| AR - Exotic Pets, Large Carnivores - Subchapter 5. Ownership and Possession of Large Carnivores | A.C.A. § 20-19-501 - 511 | AR ST § 20-19-501 to 511 | This Arkansas subchapter concerns the ownership and possession of large carnivores. Under the law, a large carnivore is defined as a bear, lion, or tiger. A person may possess a large carnivore only if he or she was in possession of the large carnivore on or before August 12, 2005 and the person applies for and is granted a permit for personal possession for each large carnivore not more than one hundred eighty (180) days after August 12, 2005. Except for these "grandfathered" possessors and other entities (zoos, USDA permittees, veterinary hospitals, etc.) it is illegal for anyone to own, possess, breed, or transfer ownership of a large carnivore.< | Statute |
| Gibson v. Babbitt | 223 F.3d 1256 (11th Cir. 2000) |
Defendant, a Native American, challenged the constitutionality of the limitation of eagle parts through the permit system to members of federally recognized tribes. The limitation under the federal eagle permit system to federally recognized Indian tribes does not violate RFRA because the government has a compelling interest in protecting a species in demise and fulfilling pre-existing trust obligations to federally-recognized tribes in light of the limited supply of eagle parts. For further discussion on free exercise challenges under the BGEPA, see Detailed Discussion of Eagle Act. |
Case | |
| NJ - Horse - 39:4-15. Sleigh bells on horses attached to a sleigh | N.J.S.A. 39:4-15 | This New Jersey law states that no person shall drive a horse attached to a sleigh or sled on a highway unless there are a sufficient number of bells attached to the horse's harness to give warning of its approach. | Statute | |
| CA - Rabies - Chapter 1. Rabies Control. | West's Ann. Cal. Health & Safety Code § 121575 - 121710 | CA HLTH & S § 121575 - § 121710 | This chapter of California laws deals with rabies control. | Statute |
| IL - Cruelty - CRUELTY TO ANIMALS LAW (ANIMAL PROTECTION) | CRUELTY TO ANIMALS LAW (ANIMAL PROTECTION), 5754-1994 |
This law represents Isreal's anti-cruelty law. The law provides that no person shall torture, treat cruelly or in any way abuse any animal. It also states that no person shall incite one animal against another or organise a contest between animals. The cutting into live tissue of an animal for cosmetic purposes is also prohibited. |
Statute | |
| ASOCIACION DE FUNCIONARIOS Y ABOGADOS POR LOS DERECHOS DE LOS ANIMALES Y OTROS CONTRA GCBA SOBRE AMPARO | ASOCIACION DE FUNCIONARIOS Y ABOGADOS POR LOS DERECHOS DE LOS ANIMALES Y OTROS CONTRA GCBA SOBRE AMPARO” | Argentina’s Juzgado No. 4 on Contentious Administrative and Tax Matters of the City of Buenos Aires held on October 21, 2015 that Sandra, an orangutan that had lived at the Buenos Aires Zoo for over 20 years, is a non-human person subject to rights, based on the precedent of the Argentina’s Federal Chamber of Criminal Cassation of December 18, 2014 and Ley 14.346, 1954. The court ruled that “Sandra has the right to enjoy the highest quality of life possible to her particular and individual situation, tending to avoid any kind of suffering that could be generated by the interference of humans in her life." In its holding, the court also stated that the Buenos Aires government has to guarantee Sandra’s adequate condition of habitat and the activities necessary to preserve her cognitive abilities. The amicus curiae experts Dr. Miguel Rivolta, Héctor Ferrari and Dr. Gabriel Aguado were instructed to prepare a binding report resolving what measures had to be adopted by the government in relationship to Sandra. | Case | |
| MA - Vehicle - § 22H. Safe transportation of animals | M.G.L.A. 90 § 22H | MA ST 90 § 22H | In Massachusetts, transporting an animal in the back of a motor vehicle on a public way unless such space is enclosed or has side and tail racks to a height of at least 46 inches extending vertically from the floor, the animal is cross tethered to the vehicle, the animal is protected by a secured container or cage or the animal is otherwise protected in a manner which will prevent the animal from being thrown or from falling or jumping from the vehicle results in a fine of not less than $50. | Statute |