Results
Displaying 111 - 120 of 6822
| Title | Citation | Alternate Citation | Agency Citation | Summary | Type |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| VA - Horse Transport - Chapter 160. Rules and Regulations Governing the Transportation of Horses (repealed 2016) | 2 VA ADC 5-160-10 to 90 | 2 VAC 5-160-10 to 90 | [Note: these regulations were repealed in 2016 and are provided for historical context only.] These previous Virginia regulations address the transportation of loads of more than six horses being transported to a commercial slaughter facility in a vehicle. Vehicles that have more than one tier holding horses are allowed only if the tier is designed, constructed, and maintained to withstand the weight of the horses held by it. | Administrative | |
| Sturgeon v. Frost | 872 F.3d 927 (9th Cir. 2017) | 2017 WL 4341742 (9th Cir. Oct. 2, 2017) | In this case, Sturgeon sought to use his hovercraft in a National Preserve to reach moose hunting grounds. Sturgeon brought action against the National Park Service (NPS), challenging NPS’s enforcement of a regulation banning operation of hovercrafts on a river that partially fell within a federal preservation area in Alaska. Alaskan law permits the use of hovercraft, NPS regulations do not; Sturgeon argued that Park Service regulations did not apply because the river was owned by the State of Alaska. Sturgeon sought both declaratory and injunctive relief preventing the Park Service from enforcing its hovercraft ban. On remand, the Court of Appeals held that regulation preventing use of hovercraft in federally managed conservation areas applied to the river in the National Preserve. While the hovercraft ban excludes "non-federally owned lands and waters" within National Park System boundaries, this court found that the waterways at issue in this case were within navigable public lands based on established precedent. The district court's grant of summary judgment to defendants was affirmed. | Case | |
| NY - Exotic - Chapter 43-B. Of the Consolidated Laws. | McKinney's E. C. L. § 11-0501 to 11-0540 | NY ENVIR CONSER § 11-0501 to 11-0540 | This set of New York statutes provides some of the state's fish and wildlife laws. Among the provisions include a prohibition against interference with wildlife, restriction on the possession and importation of certain wildlife such as wolves, wolfdogs, coyotes, coydogs, foxes, skunks, and venomous reptiles, and laws that allows individuals to take destructive wildlife. No person shall knowingly possess, harbor, sell, barter, transfer, exchange or import any wild animal for use as a pet in New York state, except that any person who possessed a wild animal for use as a pet at the time that this section went effect may retain possession of such animal for the remainder of its life. | Statute | |
| MI - Hunting - Chapter 324. Natural Resources and Environmental Protection Act. | M.C.L.A. 324.42701 - 42714 | MI ST 324.42701 - 42714 | These sections describe the licensing of and regulations of breeders and dealers, including zoological parks. These sections also describe the parameters for enclosures and pens. | Statute | |
| DILLON v. O'CONNOR | 412 P.2d 126 (Wash. 1966) | 68 Wash.2d 184 (1966) |
As the court stated, "This is ‘The Case of the Costly Canine.' ‘Bimbo,’ an acknowledged ‘tree hound' but without pedigree or registration papers, lost a bout with defendant's automobile. For ‘Bimbo's' untimely demise, his owner, plaintiff, brought suit against defendant alleging that ‘Bimbo’ was killed as a result of defendant's negligent operation of his automobile." Ultimately, the court used a market value approach in determining damages. However, based on subsequent caselaw, it should be noted that Washington uses the market value approach only for negligent injury, and not intentional injury. |
Case | |
| People v Arcidicono | 360 N.Y.S.2d 156 (1974) | 79 Misc.2d 242 (1974) |
The defendant was properly convicted of cruelty when a horse in his custody and care had to be destroyed due to malnutrition. The defendant was in charge of feeding the gelding, and was aware of his loss of weight. He knew the diet was inadequate but failed to provide more food. The defendant was guilty of violating Agriculture and Markets Law § 353 for failing to provide proper sustenance to the horse. |
Case | |
| UK - Research Animals - The Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986 Amendment Regulations 2012 | 2012 No. | Protected animals are extended under the 1986 Act to include cephalopods (i.e., octopus or squid). The principles of replacement, reduction and refinement (the 3Rs), are encompassed in section 2A of the amendment; The Secretary of State must be satisfied that a scientific objective could not be achieved without using animals, by using fewer animals, or by causing less suffering. | Statute | ||
| US - Critical Habitat Listing for the Arroyo Toad | CFR Part 17, RIN 1018-AT42 | This rule designates 11,695 acres of critical habitat for the arroyo toad in Santa Barbara , Ventura , Los Angeles , San Bernardino and Riverside counties in California . FWS had to designate critical habitat for the arroyo toad as a result of a settlement agreement in Center for Biological Diversity v. United States Fish and Wildlife Service . The critical habitat was designated in accordance with the Endangered Species Act of 1973 and its amendments. This specific critical habitat is a revision of the final rule on arroyo toad critical habitat designation of 2/1/01 ( 69 FR 9414 ), which was deemed deficient and was overruled. | Administrative | ||
| CA - Research animals - § 66017.7. Animals used for diagnostic purposes or medical research | West's Ann.Cal.Educ.Code § 66017.7 | This California law effective in 2016 allows for adoption of cats or dogs used in medical research. If the public postsecondary educational institution (or independent institution) assesses the health of an animal and determines: (1) that the animal is suitable for adoption; (2) the animal's destruction is not required; and (3) the animal is no longer needed, it shall offer the dogs or cats to an animal adoption organization or animal rescue organization for adoption prior to euthanizing those animals. | Statute | ||
| ND - Rabies - Chapter 23-36. Rabies Control. | NDCC 23-36-03 | ND ST 23-36-03 | This North Dakota statute provides that the appropriate health department, or an agency acting on the department's behalf, may seize and euthanize, impound at the owner's expense, or quarantine any animal if the state health officer, or the state health officer's designee, has probable cause to believe the animal presents clinical signs of rabies. | Statute |