Results
Displaying 61 - 70 of 6638
| Title | Citation | Alternate Citation | Agency Citation | Summary | Type |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| US - Importation - CHAPTER 3. ANIMALS, BIRDS, FISH, AND PLANTS | 18 USCS § 42 | Under this federal law, no importation of certain listed animals is permitted. Whoever violates this section, or any regulation issued pursuant thereto, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than six months, or both. | 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 | |
| Defenders of Wildlife v. Dalton | 97 F. Supp. 2d 1197 (2000) |
Plaintiff sought a preliminary injunction to prevent defendant government official from lifting the embargo against tuna from Mexico's vessels in the Eastern Pacific Ocean. Plaintiffs alleged irreparable injury if three stocks of dolphins became extinct. The court found plaintiffs failed to produce evidence showing irreparable injury. |
Case | ||
| U.S. v. Lewis | 349 F.3d 1116 (9th Cir. 2003) | 2003 U.S. App. LEXIS 23127; 2003 Cal. Daily Op. Service 9802 |
Defendant was convicted of a number of offenses related to his role in a wildlife smuggling operation. If trial did not begin within the requisite time period and defendant moved for dismissal prior to trial, the court had to dismiss the indictment, either with or without prejudice. The court held that the circumstances in the case, where it was clear that the delay in the trial caused the delay in the hearing, rather than the other way around, and where defendant repeatedly asked the court to set the case for trial and was otherwise ready to proceed to trial, plaintiff United States' pending pretrial motion could not serve as a basis for exclusion for a 117 day period. Because the delay violated the Speedy Trial Act, defendant's convictions had to be reversed, his sentences vacated, and his indictments dismissed. |
Case | |
| Amparo Directo D.A.- 454/2021 - Mexico | DA 10417/2021 | The administrative tribunal in Mexico City recognizes companion animals as family members, protected under Article 4 of their Constitution. Citing the Supreme Court of Justice, the tribunal stated that there are different types of families that are protected constitutionally, which includes some families that consider domestic animals their members. This is the decision to an Amparo against a resolution issued by the Institute of Administrative Verification (Instituto de Verificación Administrativa) holding that the owner of a pet boarding facility providing grooming and training services lacked the land use permits to have the commercial establishment. The owner of the pet boarding argued that she would only use 20% of her home for these purposes. After citing comparative law from countries such as Spain, Colombia, and Brazil, the court stated that “currently pets are considered sentient beings that are also part of the family nucleus and require attention and care. Therefore, the service provided by the Amparo promoter has become necessary for people or families also made up of domestic animals, who are looking for a place [to] care for their pets when they are away from their home for a long time” and, as such, these types of families ought to be considered by the authorities. The court stated that domestic animals “play a role of protection, support, company, affection, and care towards humans. Even the reciprocal attachment relationship between people and domestic animals is clear in multispecies families because they are treated as part of the family. They are, in a few words, members of it. Hence the name multispecies or interspecies family.” | Case | ||
| Canada Migratory Birds Convention Act, 1994 | TS 628 | Per Digest of Federal Resource Laws of Interest to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service: This 1916 treaty adopted a uniform system of protection for certain species of birds which migrate between the United States and Canada, in order to assure the preservation of species either harmless or beneficial to man. Sets certain dates for closed seasons on migratory birds. Prohibits hunting insectivorous birds, but allows killing of birds under permit when injurious to agriculture. The Convention was signed at Washington, D.C., on August 16, 1916, and ratified by the United States on September 1, 1916, and by Great Britain on October 20, 1916. Documents of ratification were exchanged on December 7, 1916. Implementing legislation for the United States was accomplished by enactment of the Migratory Bird Treaty Act in 1918 (16 USC 703-711; 40 Stat. 755). Canada and the United States signed an agreement on January 30, 1979, to amend the treaty to allow subsistence hunting of waterfowl outside of the normal hunting season, but it was never ratified by the Senate and never took effect. The treaty was amended in 1995 to establish a legal framework for the subsistence take of birds in Alaska and northern Canada by Alaska Natives and Aboriginal people in Canada. The Senate provided its advice and consent to the amendments in November, 1997. The treaty was formally implemented in 1999. | Treaty | ||
| CT - Horse - § 22-415. Inhumane transportation of equines. Penalty. Regulations | C.G.S.A. § 22-415 | CT ST § 22-415 | This Connecticut law makes it unlawful to carry any equine in an unnecessarily cruel or inhumane manner, or in a way and manner which might endanger the equine or knowingly and wilfully authorizes or permits such equine to be subjected to unnecessary torture, suffering or cruelty of any kind. Violation results in a fine of not less than one hundred dollars or more than five hundred dollars. [Also see the administrative regulations at https://www.animallaw.info/administrative/connecticut-equines-transportation-equines]. | Statute | |
| CA - Fur - § 996. Fur bearing animals raised in captivity; ownership; protection of law | West's Ann. Cal. Civ. Code § 996 | CA CIVIL § 996 | This California law provides that any furbearing animal whether born in captivity or brought into captivity for the purpose of pelting is regarded as personal property, the same as other domestic animals. | Statute | |
| EU - Farming - Commission Directive 2002/4/EC on the registration of establishments keeping laying hens | Commission Directive 2002/4/EC |
This EU commission directive concerns Council Directive 1999/74/EC on the registration of establishments keeping laying hens. It mandates that Member States establish a registration system for egg producers covered by Directive 199/74/EC. |
Statute | ||
| Animal Lovers Volunteer Ass'n Inc., (A.L.V.A.) v. Weinberger | 765 F.2d 937 (C.A.9 (Cal.),1985) | 15 Envtl. L. Rep. 20,697 (C.A.9 (Cal.),1985) |
The Animal Lovers Volunteer Association (ALVA) brought this action to enjoin the Navy from shooting feral goats on San Clemente Island (a military enclave under the jurisdiction of the Navy). After the district court granted (Cite as: 765 F.2d 937, *938) summary judgment for the Navy, the ALVA appealed. This Court found that the ALVA failed to demonstrate standing, where it only asserted an organizational interest in the problem, rather than allegations of actual injury to members of the organization. The organization failed to demonstrate an interest that was distinct from an interest held by the public at large. Affirmed.
|
Case |