Results
| Title | Citation | Alternate Citation | Agency Citation | Summary | Type | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ME - Fish and Wildlife - Chapter 7. Regulations for Wildlife in Captivity | 09-137 CMR Ch. 7, § 7.00 - 7.18 | 09-137 CMR Ch. 7, § 7.00 - 7.18 | This set of Maine regulations concerns the keeping of captive wildlife. A permit is generally required for importation, possession, propagation, rehabilitation, and exhibition of wildlife in the state. Wildlife held in captivity must be confined, contained, controlled, and sheltered in such a way as to protect it, and to protect property of others and the health and safety of the public. Section 7.11 provides the conditions and restrictions under the permit. Section 7.12 states that no primate shall be permitted unless the applicant/permit holder demonstrates a physical aide legitimate need for physical aide from a primate, and the animal in question is specifically trained for such purposes ( or the applicant must be providing foster care or training for the primate under direction or supervision of a recognized authority for same). | Administrative | ||
| IN - Cattle Slaughter - DELHI AGRICULTURAL CATTLE PRESERVATION ACT, 1994 | The Act, specific to the National Capital Region of Delhi, prohibits the slaughter of agricultural cattle such as cows, calves, bulls and bullocks. The Act bans the transport of cattle from Delhi to places outside Delhi for the purpose of slaughter. Persons who wish to export cattle must apply for a permit and submit an undertaking that the cattle shall not be slaughtered. The burden of proof is on the person who is accused under the Act of the slaughter, transport, export, sale, purchase or possession of flesh of agricultural cattle. | Statute | ||||
| Eddleman v. U.S. | 729 F.Supp. 81 (D.Mont.,1989) |
An action was brought against the BLM under the Federal Tort Claims Act claiming that the government was negligent in failing to inform the adopters that they would not be eligible to receive title if they intended to sell the horses to slaughter. The court dismissed the claim for lack of jurisdiction, characterizing the issue as one sounding in contract, based upon the PMCA, and one that therefore should be brought before the U.S. Claims Court. |
Case | |||
| Center for Biological Diversity v. Kempthorne | 607 F.Supp.2d 1078 (D.Ariz.,2009) | 2009 WL 942862 (D.Ariz.) |
Cross motions for summary judgment on Plaintiffs’ claim against Defendants, the Secretary of the Interior and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, alleging that the Secretary’s failure to designate critical habitat and prepare a recovery plan for the jaguar was unlawful under the ESA. The United States District Court, D. Arizona granted Plaintiffs’ motion in part and denied Plaintiffs’ motion in part, finding that Defendants’ determination that designation of a critical habitat would not be prudent must be set aside because it did not appear to be based on the best scientific evidence available as required by the ESA, and that Defendants’ determination not to prepare a recovery plan must also be set aside and remanded for further consideration because the determination was inconsistent with Defendants’ own policy guidance and long-standing practice concerning the distinction between foreign and domestic species. |
Case | ||
| State v. Amos | 17 N.E.3d 9 (2017) | 2014 -Ohio- 3097 | After witnessing the 73 year old defendant-appellant emerge from area by the veterinary's dumpster holding an empty, wire cage animal trap, an employee of the clinic followed the defendant-appellant's car and obtained the vehicle's license plate number. Upon returning to the dumpster, the employee found a kitten with matted eyes that seemed unhealthy. The defendant-appellant was charged with one count of animal abandonment in violation of R.C. 959.01 and was found guilty. Defendant-appellant appealed her conviction and sentence on the grounds that the court erred in finding beyond a reasonable doubt that she was a keeper or, if she was a keeper, the court erred in determining that she abandoned the animal. The Ohio Court of Appeals held that once the defendant captured the animal in a cage, she assumed the responsibility that she would treat the animal humanely and could therefore be considered a “keeper.” Since Amos captured the animal and released it in another location without taking steps to make sure the animal would be found, the Ohio Court of Appeals also held that a reasonable person could have found beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant-appellant had “abandoned” the animal. The judgment was therefore affirmed. | Case | ||
| Journal of Animal Law Table of Contents Vol 6 |
Published by the students of Michigan State University College of LawJournal of Animal Law Vol. VI (2010)The table of contents is provided below. |
Policy | ||||
| Perkins v. Hattery | 155 N.E.2d 73 (Ohio App. 1958) | 106 Ohio App. 361 |
This Ohio case examined the propriety of a county dog warden killing a dog that had killed a sheep nine hours before such seizure. The Court of Appeals held that dog warden was not authorized to destroy or otherwise dispose of a duly licensed dog found and seized by such warden upon the premises of its owner following a complaint made to the warden by the owner of sheep that the dog had killed certain of his sheep approximately nine hours before such seizure. |
Case | ||
| Derecho Animal Volume 11 Núm 1 |
|
Policy | ||||
| NC - Restaurant, animals - 2656 PHYSICAL FACILITIES | 15A NC ADC 18A.2656 | 15A NCAC 18A.2656 | This North Carolina regulation makes amendments to the Food Code related to dogs and cats in outdoor dining areas. Dogs and cats are allowed in outdoor dining areas provided the dogs or cats are physically restrained and do not pass through the indoor area of the food establishment. All live animals, including pet cats and dogs, are not permitted to come into physical contact with any serving food, serving dishes, tableware, linens, utensils, or other food service items. Employees of a food establishment who prepare or handle food must not physically contact any live animals. | Administrative | ||
| AL - Importation, wildlife - 220-2-.26. Restrictions On Possession, Sale, Importation | AL ADC 220-2-.26 | AL ADC 220-2-.26 | This Alabama regulation provides that no person, firm, corporation, partnership, or association shall possess, sell, offer for sale, import, or bring into the state any of the listed species including piranha, mongoose, non-native coyote, fox, black bear, and others. It is also unlawful for any person to have in possession any live, protected wild bird or wild animal or live embryo, eggs, or sperm of these protected wild birds or animals. | Administrative |