Results
| Title | Citation | Alternate Citation | Summary | Type |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Whittier Terrace Associates v. Hampshire | 532 N.E.2d 712 (Mass. 1989) |
Defendant was a person with a psychiatric disability and living in public housing. Defendant claimed to have an emotional and psychological dependence on her cat. The court held that the housing authority discriminated against defendant under Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act for failure to waive the no pets policy as a reasonable accommodation for the mental disability. The court noted that there must be a narrow exception "to the rigid application of a no-pet rule, involving no untoward collateral consequences," because the handicapped person could fully receive the benefits of the program if provided the accommodation. |
Case | |
| TN - Dog - Consolidated Dog Laws | T. C. A. §§ 44-8-408 - 413; §§ 44-17-101 - 601; T. C. A. § 5-1-120, § 6-54-135, § 39-14-205, § 39-14-213, § 44-14-104, § 70-4-103, § 70-4-112; § 70-4-118, § 70-4-122, § 70-2-214; § 4-1-343 | These Tennessee statutes comprise the state's dog laws. Among the provisions include licensing requirements for companion animal dealers, laws concerning damage done by dogs, and the Tennessee Spay/Neuter Law. | Statute | |
| In re: JUDIE HANSEN | 57 Agric. Dec. 1072 (1998) | 1998 WL 872492 (U.S.D.A.) | Recommendations of administrative officials charged with responsibility for achieving congressional purpose of statute are highly relevant to any sanction to be imposed and are entitled to great weight in view of experience gained by administrative officials during their day-to-day supervision of regulated industry; however, recommendation of administrative officials as to sanction is not controlling, and in appropriate circumstances, sanction imposed may be considerably less, or different, than that recommended by administrative officials. | Case |
| NJ - Endangered - Chapter 2A. Wildlife Generally | NJSA 23:2A-1 to 23:2A-1:16 | NJ ST 23:2A-1 to 23:2A-1:16 | These statutes comprise the New Jersey Endangered and Nongame Species Conservation Act. The definitions used in the Act are described as well as the rules for listing species, the powers and duties of the supervising department, and the designation of funding. Under the statute, violation of the Act incurs a civil penalty of $250-5,000. In 2014, provisions were added for the prohibition on import, sale, or purchase of ivory products. In 2018, a law was added that prohibits a person from using a wild or exotic animal in a traveling animal act. | Statute |
| US - Conservation - Fish and Wildlife Act of 1956 | 16 USC 742a - 742k | The Fish and Wildlife Act of 1956 (16 U.S.C. 742a-742j, not including 742 d-l; 70 Stat. 1119), establishes a comprehensive national fish, shellfish, and wildlife resources policy with emphasis on the commercial fishing industry but also with a direction to administer the Act with regard to the inherent right of every citizen and resident to fish for pleasure, enjoyment, and betterment and to maintain and increase public opportunities for recreational use of fish and wildlife resources. Among other things, it directs a program of continuing research, extension, and information services on fish and wildlife matters, both domestically and internationally. | Statute | |
| Colombia, DECRETO 1608, 1978 | DECRETO 1608 de 1978 | Decreto 1608 regulates the Code of Natural Renewable Resources and environmental protection regarding terrestrial wildlife, as well as all the activities and products relating to this resource. Even though Decreto 1608, lays out general dispositions for the conservation and protection of terrestrial wildlife, Article 5 establishes that Decreto 1608 applies to “the management of cetaceans, sirenians, pinnipeds, marine and semi-aquatic birds, sea turtles and fresh or brackish water, anuran batrachians and all other species that do not complete their life cycle in the aquatic environment, but that depend on it for their subsistence.” In order to guarantee the efficient use of wildlife and its products, Decreto 1608, requires specific licenses for the exploitation of wildlife and its products. It establishes the parameters and limitations for the activity of hunting and the granting of licenses for this purpose. | Statute | |
| AL - Sterilization - Chapter 9. Sterilization of Dogs and Cats. | Ala. Code 1975 § 3-9-1 to 4 | AL ST § 3-9-1 to 4 | These statutes require animal shelters, animal control agencies, and humane societies to sterilize dogs and cats acquired from other animal shelters, animal control agencies, and humane societies. For purposes of this statute, the term "sterilization" refers to the surgical removal of the reproductive organs of a dog or cat in order to render the animal unable to reproduce. Adoptive animals must be sterilized by a licensed veterinarian before the animal is released to the new owner, or the new owner must enter into a written agreement with the facility certifying that sterilization will be performed by a licensed veterinarian within 30 days after acquisition of the animal or within 30 days of the sexual maturity of the animal. | Statute |
| Animal Law Index Volume 17, Part 1 |
Animal Law Review, Volume 17, Issue 1 (Fall 2010)
INTRODUCTIONLEGAL PERSONHOOD AND THE NONHUMAN RIGHTS PROJECT
|
Policy | ||
| Pless v. State | 648 S.E.2d 752 (Ga. App. 2007) | 286 Ga.App. 235 (2007) |
In this Georgia case, the defendant was convicted by a jury in the trial court of two counts of failure to keep an animal under restraint and one count of allowing an animal to become a public nuisance. On appeal, the appellate court affirmed the defendant's conviction with the exception of that portion of his sentence requiring him to reimburse the county for his court-appointed attorney fees. The Supreme Court of Georgia, however, reversed the appellate court's holding and ruled that the trial court was authorized to impose the reimbursement of attorney fees as part of the sentence. On remand, the appellate court vacated that portion of its opinion that reversed the imposition of attorney fees and adopted the Supreme Court's opinion as its own; all other respects of the appellate decision, Pless v. State, 633 S.E.2d 340 (Ga. App., 2006), remain undisturbed. |
Case |
| OR - Sharks - 498.257. Possession, sale, etc. of shark fins prohibited; exceptions | O. R. S. § 498.257, O. R. S. § 509.160 | OR ST § 498.257, OR ST § 509.160 | Under these Oregon statutes, a person may not possess, sell or offer for sale, trade or distribute a shark fin. However, there are exceptions for shark fins from spiny dogfish, for people who have a shark license, and for fish processors who have a license. | Statute |