Results
| Title | Citation | Alternate Citation | Agency Citation | Summary | Type |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| CT - Vehicle - § 14-272b. Transport of dogs in pick-up trucks. Restrictions | C. G. S. A. § 14-272b | CT ST § 14-272b | This Connecticut law prohibits any person from transporting a dog in the open bed of a pick-up truck unless the dog is secured in a cage or other container to prevent it from jumping out of the truck. | Statute | |
| LEDESMA, DIEGO ALBER TO SOBRE 1 -LEY DE PROTECCION ANIMAL, MALOS TRATOS O ACTOS DE CRUELDAD - Argentina- do not publish yet! | Lola Limon, cougar as subject of Rights | Case | |||
| UK - Cruelty - Protection of Animals Act 1911 | 1911 Ch 27 |
For historical purposes only. Law has been repealed and/or replaced. The main piece of anti-cruelty legislation applicable to England and Wales. The law was replaced by the 2006 Amendments to this Act. |
Statute | ||
| Animal Law and Welfare - International Perspectives |
|
Policy | |||
| KS - Veterinarian Issues - Professional Conduct | K.A.R. 70-8-1 | KS ADC 70-8-1 | The following represents acts by a Kansas licensed veterinarian that shall be considered unprofessional conduct and shall constitute grounds for disciplinary action against the licensee. | Administrative | |
| Defenders of Wildlife v. Salazar | 729 F.Supp.2d 1207 (D.Mont.,2010) | 2010 WL 3084194 (D.Mont.,) |
In February of 2008, Defendant, the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service (the "Service"), issued a final ruling to delist the Rocky Mountain gray wolf species, removing the ESA’s protections throughout the northern Rocky Mountain distinct population segment ("DPS"), except in Wyoming. Twelve parties challenged the final ruling, arguing, foremost, that the decision violates the ESA by only partially protecting a listed population. The United States District Court for the District of Montana issued two findings: (1) the ESA does not allow the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service to list only part of a species as endangered, or to protect a listed distinct population segment only in part; and (2) the legislative history of the ESA does not support the Service’s interpretation of the phrase "significant portion of its range," but instead supports the long-standing view that the ESA does not allow a distinct population to be subdivided. Accordingly, the Service’s ruling to delist the Rocky Mountain gray wolf was vacated as invalid and Plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment was granted. |
Case | |
| CA - Reptiles & Amphibians - Division 5. Protected Reptiles and Amphibians | West's Ann. Cal. Fish & G. Code § 5000 - 5062 | CA FISH & G § 5000 - 5062 | These sections are the California statutes that specifically protect certain reptiles and amphibians. The sections enumerate the protected species and strictly prohibit taking and possession, with a narrow exception that may be granted by permit to an educational or scientific institution or a public zoological garden. | Statute | |
| MA - Eggs - Ch. 129 Prevention of Farm Animal Cruelty Act | M.G.L.A. 129 §§ 1-1 - 1-12 | Mass. Gen. Laws Ann. ch. 129 App., §§ 1-1 - 1-12 (West) | This collection of laws was created by Massachusetts voters when they approved Question 3 and the 2016 ballot. These laws prevent the inhumane confinement of pregnant pigs, calves raised for veal, and egg-laying hens in the state of Massachusetts. These laws also prohibit the sale of products in Massachusetts made from animals confined in violation of these laws. | Statute | |
| AU - Wildlife - Nature Conservation Act 2002 (TAS) | Nature Conservation Act 2002 No. 63 of 2002 31.12.2002 |
An Act to make provision with respect to the conservation and protection of the fauna, flora and geological diversity of the State, to provide for the declaration of national parks and other reserved land and for related purposes. |
Statute | ||
| Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife | 504 U.S. 555 (1992) |
Respondents filed suit challenging the new regulation under the ESA that limited the jurisdiction to the U.S. and the high seas. While the case, was remanded the central issue to this case was whether respondents had standing to challenge the ruling. |
Case |
