Results
Displaying 61 - 70 of 6822
| Title | Citation | Alternate Citation | Agency Citation | Summary | Type |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| NY - Horse Racing - Section 4043.2. Restricted use of drugs, medication and other substances | 9 NY ADC 4043.2 | 9 NYCRR 4043.2 | This regulation states which drugs and medications are permitted to be used in racehorses in New York, and how and when they may be administered. | Administrative | |
| US - Wolf - Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Regulations for Nonessential Experimental Populations of the Western | FR Doc. 04-5248 | RIN 1018-AT61 |
We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) propose regulations for the nonessential experimental populations of the western distinct population segment (DPS) of the gray wolf (Canis lupus). In addition, we propose regulations so that States with wolf management plans approved by the Service can apply for additional authorities to manage wolves consistent with those approved plans. These proposed regulations would only have effect in States that have an approved State management plan for gray wolves. |
Administrative | |
| KS - Racing - 74-8801 to 74-8842. Parimutuel Wagering | K. S. A. §§ 74-8801 to 74-8845 | KS ST §§ 74-8801 to 74-8845 | This statute creates the Kansas Racing and Gaming Commission. The Commission has the power to observe and inspect all racetracks and is responsible for promulgating regulations including regulations establishing what drugs and at what levels are allowable in the blood or urine of horses and greyhounds. The statute specifies age limits for horses and greyhounds to be able to race. Horses cannot compete until they reach 2 years of age. Greyhounds cannot compete in a race until they reach the age of 15 months. In order to construct or own a racetrack facility a license must be obtained from the Commission. | Statute | |
| Decision STL12651-2017 | Decision STL12651-2017 | The Labor Cassation Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice decided on an action of ‘tutela’ filed by la Fundación Botánica y Zoológica de Barranquilla, Fundazoo against the Civil Chamber of the Supreme Court, Luis Domingo Gómez Maldonado, Corpocaldas and others. The Plaintiffs argued that the Defendants had violated their rights to due process and right to defense, as well as the principle of legality and contradiction, when the Defendant ordered the transfer of the spectacled bear ‘Chucho’ from the Barranquilla zoo to a natural reserve in Narino. Plaintiff sought to leave without effect Decision AHC4806 2017 that granted habeas corpus to ‘Chucho’, the spectacled bear, allowing the bear to stay at the Barranquilla Zoo, which according to Plaintiffs, is able to provide Chucho with all the requirements for his well being, including veterinary care, food, companionship and infrastructure. The Labor Chamber decided for the Plaintiff and left without effect the decision of the Civil Chamber of the Supreme Court, arguing that the Civil Chamber had ruled based on norms that did not apply to the specific case, to a point that the effects of such application had resulted in an interpretation that completely deferred to what the legislative had intended. The Civil Chamber, the court said in its reasoning, wrongly applied the procedure of habeas corpus, which led to the violation of the due process of law of the Plaintiffs, as ‘Chucho’ has no legal capacity to be a party in a legal procedure. The labor chamber explained that from a constitutional view, the granting of habeas corpus for the protection of animals was not proper, as it is established to protect the right to freedom of persons, which is the basis for a society. For that reason, it can only be attributable to human beings that can be individualized. This rules out the other beings to use this mechanism, including legal persons, as it would erode the real essence of this legal mechanism, the court stated. Furthermore, the magister judge states that the legal treatment that has been given to animals corresponds to the sentients beings, which implies their protection, rather than persons. This means that humans have the responsibility to respect animals, but does not imply that animals can fight for their freedom through the mechanism of habeas corpus, in these cases the defense of animals cannot be resolved by giving them the status of persons, but rather through judicial mechanisms such as popular actions (for the protection of collective and diffuse rights and interests), or with preventive material apprehension | Case | ||
| PR - Domestic Violence - § 1678 Protection orders | PR ST T. 5 § 1678 |
This Puerto Rico law provides that, in all cases in which a person is accused of domestic violence or child abuse, the court shall, by petition of party, issue a protection order for the petitioner so that he/she be the sole custodian of the animal. The court shall order the accused to keep far away from the animal and prohibit contact of any kind. Violation is a fourth-degree felony. |
Statute | ||
| NY - Municipal power - Chapter 69. Of the Consolidated Laws. | McKinney's Agriculture and Markets Law § 124 | NY AGRI & MKTS § 124 | This New York law provides that the commissioner is hereby authorized to (a) promulgate, after public hearing, such rules and regulations as are necessary to supplement and give full effect to the provisions of sections one hundred thirteen, one hundred fourteen and one hundred seventeen of this article; and (b) exercise all other powers and functions as are necessary to carry out the duties and purposes set forth in sections one hundred thirteen, one hundred fourteen and one hundred seventeen of this article. | Statute | |
| Scotland - Wild Mammals - Protection of Wild Mammals (Scotland) Act 2002 | 2002 asp 6 | An Act to prohibit deliberate hunting of wild mammals with dogs. The Act also makes it an offence for an owner or occupier of land to knowingly allow another person to hunt wild mammals with dogs on their land. Stalking and flushing is exempted in certain circumstances, for example, in order to protect livestock, providing food for animal or consumption, or controlling pest species. | Statute | ||
| US - Horse - Chapter 44. Protection of Horses. | 15 U.S.C.A. § 1821 - 1831 | The Federal Horse Protection Act of December 2, 1970, states that causing horses to be "sore" or to suffer physical pain and distress for the purpose of improving the horse's performance is cruel and inhumane. This set of statutes describes both lawful and unlawful conduct against horses as well as the civil and criminal penalties that are in place for violating this Act. | Statute | ||
| ND - Eagle - Chapter 20.1-04. Birds, Regulations. | NDCC 20.1-04-05 (repealed 2017) | ND ST 20.1-04-05 | (Repealed 2017) North Dakota has a statute that specifically prohibits any taking or possession of bald and golden eagles or their parts. Included in the prohibited acts are take, kill, hunt, possess, pursue, or even disturb. Buying and selling are not specifically listed, but are presumed to be included in possess. | Statute | |
| Prindable v. Association of Apartment Owners of 2987 Kalakaua | 304 F.Supp.2d 1245 (D. Hawaii, 2003) |
Condominium resident filed a complaint alleging the housing authority violated the Federal Fair Housing Amendments Act by failing to waive the "no pets" as a reasonable accommodation for his handicap. The court held that where the primary handicap is mental or emotional in nature, an animal "must be peculiarly suited to ameliorate the unique problems of the mentally disabled," and granted the housing authority's motion for summary judgment on the issue of the housing authority's failure to make a reasonable accommodation under the FHA. |
Case |