|Title||Citation||Alternate Citation||Agency Citation||Summary||Type|
|Animal Liberation Ltd v National Parks & Wildlife Service|| NSWSC 457||
The applicants sought an interlocutory injunction to restrain the respondent from conducting an aerial shooting of goats as part of a 'cull'. The applicants claimed that the aerial shooting constituted cruelty as the goats, once wounded, would die a slow death. An injunction was granted to the applicants pending final hearing of the substantive action against the aerial shooting.
|ASOCIACION DE FUNCIONARIOS Y ABOGADOS POR LOS DERECHOS DE LOS ANIMALES Y OTROS CONTRA GCBA SOBRE AMPARO||ASOCIACION DE FUNCIONARIOS Y ABOGADOS POR LOS DERECHOS DE LOS ANIMALES Y OTROS CONTRA GCBA SOBRE AMPARO”||Argentina’s Juzgado No. 4 on Contentious Administrative and Tax Matters of the City of Buenos Aires held on October 21, 2015 that Sandra, an orangutan that had lived at the Buenos Aires Zoo for over 20 years, is a non-human person subject to rights, based on the precedent of the Argentina’s Federal Chamber of Criminal Cassation of December 18, 2014 and Ley 14.346, 1954. The court ruled that “Sandra has the right to enjoy the highest quality of life possible to her particular and individual situation, tending to avoid any kind of suffering that could be generated by the interference of humans in her life." In its holding, the court also stated that the Buenos Aires government has to guarantee Sandra’s adequate condition of habitat and the activities necessary to preserve her cognitive abilities. The amicus curiae experts Dr. Miguel Rivolta, Héctor Ferrari and Dr. Gabriel Aguado were instructed to prepare a binding report resolving what measures had to be adopted by the government in relationship to Sandra.||Case|
|TN - Exotic Pet - Part 4. Exotic Animals.||T. C. A. §§ 70-4-401 - 418||TN ST §§ 70-4-401 - 418||This Tennessee chapter relates to the private possession of wildlife. It is unlawful for any person to possess, transport, import, export, buy, sell, barter, propagate or transfer any wildlife, whether indigenous to this state or not, except as provided by this part and rules and regulations promulgated by the Tennessee wildlife resources commission pursuant to this part. Additionally, no person shall possess Class I (all species inherently dangerous to humans such as wolves, bears, lions and poisonous snakes) or Class II (native species that are not listed in other classes) wildlife without having documentary evidence showing the name and address of the supplier of such wildlife and date of acquisition. In order to obtain a permit to possess Class I wildlife, a person must be 21, have at least 2 years of experience handling such animals (or take an approved written exam), have a full-time resident caretaker, and must have a plan for the quick and safe recapture of the wildlife, among other provisions. The annual permits and fees for personal possession of Class I wildlife are $150/animal or $1,000/facility.||Statute|
|NJ - Veterinary - Chapter 16. Veterinary Medicine, Surgery and Dentistry.||NJSA 45:16-1 to 45:16-18||NJ ST 45:16-1 to 45:16-18||These are the state's veterinary practice laws. Among the provisions include licensing requirements, laws concerning the state veterinary board, veterinary records laws, and the laws governing disciplinary actions for impaired or incompetent practitioners.||Statute|
|Kanab City v. Popowich||194 P.3d 198, (Utah App.,2008)||2008 UT App 337 (2008); 2008 WL 4260702||
In this Utah case, the defendant appeals the decision of the district court finding him guilty on four counts of failing to maintain a city dog license and one count of running an illegal kennel. In December 2005, a Kanab City animal control officer responded to numerous complaints of barking dogs at Defendant's residence. This officer observed four dogs over the age of three months on the premises during two separate visits to Defendant's home that month and on subsequent random visits in the following months. On appeal, defendant argued that the city ordinance on which his conviction for operating an illegal kennel is based is unconstitutionally vague. This court disagreed, finding that an ordinary person reading the ordinance would understand that, in order to keep more than two dogs over the age of three months in the same residence, a citizen must register for a kennel permit.
|Colombia, LEY 1753 DE 2015||LEY 1753 DE 2015||This law adopts the National Development Plan for 2014-2018, denominated “All for a new country." Article 248 states: “Public policy in defense of animal rights and/or animal protection. The national government will promote public policies and governmental actions in which the rights of animals and/or animal protection are promoted and promulgated. To accomplish this goal, the national government will work in coordination with social organizations of animal defense to design policies where concepts, institutional powers, conditions, aspects, limitations and specifications on animal care regarding the reproduction, possession, adoption, production, distribution, and commercialization of domestic animals not suitable for reproduction will be established. The territorial and decentralized entities will be responsible for monitoring, controlling, and promoting respect for animals and their physical and mental integrity.”||Statute|
|PA - Ordinances - § 459-1201. Applicability to cities of the first class, second class, second class A and third class||3 P.S. § 459-1201||PA ST 3 P.S. § 459-1201||This Pennsylvania statute provides that cities of the first and second class are not affected by state dog licensing programs; existing city-level programs remain in effect. With cities of the third class, certain provisions of the state article on dog licensing shall not apply if the city has established a licensing program by ordinance.||Statute|
|MS - Dog Licenses - Chapter 53. Dogs and Rabies Control.||Miss. Code Ann. § 41-53-11||MS ST 41-53-11||This Mississippi statute provides that it is the lawful duty for any sheriff, conservation officer or peace officer of a county or municipality to kill any dog above the age of three (3) months found running at large on whose neck there is no such collar and tag or who are not inoculated according to state law. No action shall be maintained by the owner for such killing. However, the statute then goes on to say that it is the duty of such officer to first impound the dogs for five days and give a description of the dog to the sheriff.||Statute|
|Williams v. Spinola||622 P.2d 322 (Or.App., 1981)||50 Or.App. 87 (1981)||
Defendant appeals from a judgment entered on a jury verdict awarding plaintiff $3,600 in compensatory and $4,000 in punitive damages for the unlawful killing of plaintiff's dogs. Defendant contended at trial that the dogs were trying molest her sheep. With regard to defendant's claim on appeal that punitive damages were not appropriate in this case, the court agreed that the issue should not have been submitted to the jury. The court affirmed the jury's finding with regard to denial of defendant's directed verdict, and reversed the award of punitive damages.
|TX- Circus, entertainment animals - Subchapter B. Care of Animals by Circuses, Carnivals, and Zoos||25 TX ADC § 169.41 - 169.48||25 TAC § 169.41 to .48 (§§ 169.41 to 169.48. Repealed eff. Nov. 13, 2016)||
This set of regulations sets license conditions and fees for circuses, carnivals, and zoos that are regulated by the Department of Health Services and establishes standards regarding the care of animals maintained by those facilities. All circuses, carnivals, and zoos that are regulated by the United States Department of Agriculture under the Federal Animal Welfare Act are exempt from these regulations.