Results
Displaying 31 - 40 of 6637
| Title | Citation | Alternate Citation | Agency Citation | Summary | Type |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ID - Exotic Animals - Chapter 27. Rules Governing Deleterious Exotic Animals | IDAPA 02.04.27.100 | ID ADC 02.04.27.100 | These Idaho rules concern the possession, propagation, and exhibition of "deleterious exotic animals." No person may possess or propagate a deleterious exotic animal in the state, unless such person obtains a possession permit issued by the Administrator. Species of deleterious exotic animals include leopards, lions, non-pinioned mute swans, Russian wild boar, and all non-human primates, among others. | Administrative | |
| A night monkey's corpse after necropsy | Slideshow Images | ||||
| Lowry v. City of San Diego | 818 F.3d 840 (9th Cir. Apr. 1, 2016) | 2016 WL 1273183 (9th Cir. Apr. 1, 2016) | Plaintiff in this case filed suit against the City of San Diego after she was attacked and bit by one of the police dogs. Lowry alleged that the City’s policy of training its police dogs to “bite and hold” individuals resulted in a violation of her Fourth Amendment rights against unreasonable seizures. The court remanded the case back to the lower court, holding that a reasonable jury could find that the use of the police dog against Lowry was an intrusion on her Fourth Amendment rights. The court maintained that the officers had reason to believe that letting the dog into Lowry’s office “off-lead” had the potential of creating severe harm. The court also noted that Lowry was not attempting to evade or resist arrest and therefore letting the dog “off-lead” may not have been reasonable. Reversed and remanded for further proceedings. | Case | |
| US - Marine Mammals - Petition to Designate the Sakhalin Bay-Amur River Stock of Beluga Whales under the MMPA | Submitted by Animal Welfare Institute (AWI), Whale and Dolphin Conservation (WDC), Cetacean Society International, and Earth Island Institute | Under § 1383 of the Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA), 16 U.S.C. § 1361 et seq., the Animal Welfare Institute (AWI), Whale and Dolphin Conservation (WDC), Cetacean Society International, and Earth Island Institute hereby petition the Secretary of the U.S. Department of Commerce, through the U.S. National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), to designate Sakhalin Bay-Amur River beluga whales (Delphinapterus leucas) in the Sea of Okhotsk as a “depleted” stock. As described herein, the best scientific information available indicates that these beluga whales constitute a stock that is well below its optimum sustainable population (OSP) and, under the MMPA, qualify for such designation. The evidence also suggests that the stock continues to decline and faces a number of risk factors, providing additional impetus for such designation. | Administrative | ||
| MA - Assistance Animal - Assistance Animal/Guide Dog Laws | M.G.L.A. 90 § 14A; M.G.L.A. 129 § 1, 39C, 39D, 39F, 43; M.G.L.A. 272 § 98A; M.G.L.A. 272 § 85B; M.G.L.A. 140 § 139 | MA ST 90 § 14A; MA ST 129 § 1, 39C, 39D, 39F, 43; MA ST 272 § 98A; MA ST 272 § 85B; MA ST 140 § 139 | The following statutes comprise the state's relevant assistance animal and service dog laws. | Statute | |
| DE - Veterinary - Chapter 33. Veterinarians. | 24 Del.C. § 3300 - 3323 | DE ST TI 24 § 3300 - 3323 | 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 | |
| Brackett v. State | 236 S.E.2d 689 (Ga.App. 1977) | 142 Ga.App. 601 (Ga.App. 1977) |
In this Georgia case, appellants were convicted of the offense of cruelty to animals upon evidence that they were spectators at a cockfight. The Court of Appeals agreed with the appellants that the evidence was insufficient to support the conviction, and the judgment was reversed. The court found that the statute prohibiting cruelty to animals was meant to include fowls as animals and thus proscribed cruelty to a gamecock. However, the evidence that defendants were among the spectators at a cockfight was insufficient to sustain their convictions. |
Case | |
| Alternative Research & Dev. Found. v. Veneman | 262 F.3d 406 (D.C. Cir. 2001) | 347 U.S.App.D.C. 296, 50 Fed.R.Serv.3d 1046, 32 Envtl. L. Rep. 20,142 |
An animal rights foundation sought to have the definition of “animal” amended, so that birds, mice and rats used for research would not be excluded. USDA agreed to consider the animal rights foundation petition to have the definition amended, and agreed to do so in reasonable amount of time. The National Association for Biomedical Research (NABR), a biomedical research group that used birds, mice and rats in its research, attempted to intervene and prevent USDA from considering the petition. However, NABR was prohibited from doing so because there was no showing that preventing intervention would result in its interests not being violated. |
Case | |
| Código Penal para el Estado Libre y Soberano de Tlaxcala | Código Penal de Tlaxcala | In 2022, Decreto No. 160 modified the Criminal Code by adding Title XX, “Of the Crimes Committed Against Animals.” It has only one title: “Crimes Against the Life, Integrity, and Dignity of Animals,” which comprises articles 435, 436, 437, 438, 439, 440, 441, and 442. Article 435 deals with acts of mistreatment and animal cruelty. | Statute | ||
| U.S. v. CITGO Petroleum Corp. | 801 F.3d 477 (5th Cir. 2015) | 2015 WL 5201185 (5th Cir., 2015) | CITGO was convicted of multiple violations of the Clean Air Act and its regulations, and the Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918 (“MBTA”). CITGO urged the 5th Circuit to reverse the Clean Air Act convictions because the district court erroneously instructed the jury about the scope of a regulation concerning “oil-water separators.” CITGO also contended that the MBTA convictions were infirm because the district court misinterpreted the statute as covering unintentional bird kills. The 5th Circuit agreed with both contentions, holding that CITGO's equalization tanks and air floatation device were not oil-water separators under the Clean Air Act's regulations and that “taking” migratory birds involved only “conduct intentionally directed at birds, such as hunting and trapping, not commercial activity that unintentionally and indirectly caused migratory bird deaths. The district court’s decision was reversed and remanded with instructions. | Case |