Results
Title |
Author | Citation | Alternate Citation | Agency Citation | Summary | Type |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| AL - Veterinary - Chapter 29. Veterinarians. | Ala. Code 1975 § 34-29-1 - 135 | AL ST § 34-29-1 to 135 | These are the state's veterinary practice laws. Among the provisions include licensing requirements, laws concerning the state veterinary board, veterinary records laws, and the laws governing disciplinary actions for impaired or incompetent practitioners. | Statute | ||
| AL - Wildlife - § 9-2-13. Commissioner of Conservation and Natural Resources -- Authority to prohibit importation of birds, anim | Ala. Code 1975 § 9-2-13 | AL ST § 9-2-13 | This Alabama law provides that the Commissioner of Conservation and Natural Resources may, by regulation, prohibit the importation of any animal when such importation is not in the best interest of the state. However, this does not apply to those animals used for display purposes at circuses, carnivals, zoos, and other shows or exhibits. Importing a prohibited animal into the state is a Class C misdemeanor with a fine of $1,000 - 5,000, or jail for 30 days, or both. | Statute | ||
| AL - Wildlife, Captive - Article 11. Possession of Wildlife for Public Exhibition Purposes. | Ala. Code 1975 § 9-11-320 - 328 | AL ST § 9-11-320 to 328 | This set of Alabama laws relates to the possession of captive wildlife. The Commissioner of Conservation and Natural Resources may issue an annual permit to possess wildlife for public exhibition to a person qualified by education or experience in the care and treatment of wildlife at at a cost of $25.00. Violation of any provision of the article results in a fine of not more than $500.00, imprisonment for not more than three months, or both. Notably, the provisions of the article do not apply to any municipal, county, state or other publicly owned zoo or wildlife exhibit, privately owned traveling zoo or circus or pet shop. | 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 | ||
| Alaimo v. Racetrack at Evangeline Downs, Inc. | 893 So.2d 190 (3rd Cir., 2005) | 2005 WL 233806 (3rd Cir.) |
A racehorse breeder and owner brought suit against a racetrack for the loss of future winnings after a racehorse collided with a negligently maintained gate on the racetrack. The trial court awarded plaintiff $38,000 without specifying what the award was for. The Court of Appeals affirmed the decision holding the award was not unreasonable based on the horse's racing history. |
Case | ||
| ALDF v. Glickman | 154 F.3d 426 (1998) |
Animal welfare group and individual plaintiffs brought action against, inter alia, United States Department of Agriculture (USDA), challenging its regulations concerning treatment of nonhuman primates on grounds that they violated USDA's statutory mandate under Animal Welfare Act (AWA). |
Case | |||
| ALDF v. Glickman | 204 F.3d 229(2000) | 340 U.S.App.D.C. 191(2000) |
Animal welfare organization and individual plaintiffs brought action against United States Department of Agriculture (USDA), challenging regulations promulgated under Animal Welfare Act (AWA) to promote psychological well-being of nonhuman primates kept by exhibitors and researchers. The Court of Appeals held that: (1) regulations were valid, and (2) animal welfare organization did not have standing to raise procedural injury. Case discussed in topic: US Animal Welfare Act |
Case | ||
| ALDF v. Quigg | 932 F.2d 920(Fed. Cir. 1991) | 1991 U.S. App. LEXIS 7884 | This case establishes the relative inability of third parties to challenge the veracity of an existing patent for genetically engineered animals. Judicial review is rare in such cases because third party plaintiffs, under the Administrative Procedures Act, lack standing to challenge the Patent and Trademark Office's interpretation of existing law. | Case | ||
| All Hands On Deck: Biopiracy & the Available Protections for Traditional Knowledge | Shannon F. Smith | 10 J. Animal & Nat. Resource L. 273 | As the United States and other developed countries seek better protections for their intellectual property, Southern developing countries rich in biological resources seek better protections for these resources and the knowledge of their indigenous peoples. The story goes that Northern scientists are bioprospecting within Southern countries and obtaining knowledge about traditional plants and their uses from the countries’ native people. The Northern scientists then take this traditional knowledge and develop new uses or products, which they patent in their own countries. They do this, however, without compensating the indigenous groups who initially supplied the base knowledge. The indigenous people also claim that the cost of medicine and other goods rises, as their traditional knowledge may now come with a licensing fee. This Note discusses “traditional knowledge,” as this indigenous knowledge has been termed. It looks at what this knowledge is and the difficulties in defining it. It further looks at the problems traditional knowledge presents in terms of finding a solution both parties are satisfied with. As traditional knowledge generally does not fit in the Western concept of protectable intellectual property, this Note looks to the problems this conflict between differing property systems creates. Finally, this Note considers the current protections that are available for individual tribes or nations to choose between to fit their own individual needs, despite numerous failed attempts to integrate such protections into international treaties. | Article | ||
| Allanson v. Toncich | 2002 WL 1897936 (Austrailia) | 2002 WASCA 216 |
Appeal uphold the judgement against the dog owner for damages, but recalculates damages upward. |
Case |