Results
Displaying 91 - 100 of 6638
| Title | Citation | Alternate Citation | Agency Citation | Summary | Type |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Scotland - Wildlife - Wildlife and Natural Environment (Scotland) Act 2011 | 2011 asp 6 | This Act provides various protections to certain wild animals in Scotland, and makes amendments to the Nature Conservation (Scotland) Act 2004. | Statute | ||
| US - Endangered - Petition to List the Northwest Atlantic DPS of the Thorny Skate | Submitted by the Animal Welfare Institute (AWI) | The Animal Welfare Institute and Defenders of Wildlife (Petitioners) hereby petition the Secretary of Commerce, the Administrator of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, and the Assistant Administrator for Fisheries of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, to list the Northwest Atlantic population of thorny skate (Amblyraja radiata) as an endangered or threatened Distinct Population Segment (DPS), pursuant to the Endangered Species Act (ESA) (16 U.S.C. § 1531–44). In the alternative, Petitioners request NMFS to list a U.S. DPS of the thorny skate as a threatened or endangered species. In addition, Petitioners seek the designation of critical habitat concurrently with any listing of the thorny skate, as authorized by statute. | Administrative | ||
| Uganda - Cruelty - Chapter 220 Animal Act | Consolidation of 1988 of Ordinance No. 25 of 1957 as amended last by L.N. No. 224 of 1962 | This Uganda act, in English, provides provisions for the offense of animal cruelty. The act also allows the court to order the destruction of an animal when the animal's owner has been convicted of an offense of animal cruelty if the court is satisfied it would be cruel to keep the animal alive. The court may also deprive a person convicted of cruelty ownership of the animal and order for the animal to be disposed as it thinks fit. It is also illegal to permit a diseased animal to be at large in public places; a court may also order a diseased animal at large in any public place to be destroyed. No appeal can be made against either order of destruction. The sale of poisoned grain that is to be used as feeding stuff is also an offence. Also included in this act are provisions about experiments. | Statute | ||
| AZ - Endangered, nongame - Illegal Taking or Wounding of Wildlife | A. R. S. § 17-268, § 17-296, § 17-298, § 17-298.01, § 17-314, § 17-402 - 407 | AZ ST § 17-268, § 17-296, § 17-298, § 17-298.01, § 17-314, § 17-401 | Arizona assesses a monetary civil penalty for the possession or taking of listed species of wildlife and endangered/nongame wildlife (including eagles). This fine goes to the state wildlife theft prevention fund and is in addition to any other fine or penalty assessed by law. | Statute | |
| Connecticut General Statutes: Chapter 338: Section 6619 | Conn. Gen. Stat. § 6619 (1918) | Section 6619 of Chapter 338 from the 1918 General Laws of Connecticut covers information, procedure and bail. Specifically, the statute states the circumstances for reach a search warrant will be issued. | Statute | ||
| LA - Facility dog - § 284. Facility dogs; use in court; procedure | LSA-R.S. 15:284 | LA R.S. 15:284 | This 2018 Louisiana law allows a witness who is under 18 or who has a developmental disability (as defined) to have a facility dog, if available, accompany him or her while testifying in court. Additionally, the court may allow any witness who does not meet those criteria to have a facility dog, if available, while testifying in court. Under this section, a "facility dog" means a dog that is certified and a graduate of an assistance dog organization that is accredited by Assistance Dogs International or a similar internationally recognized organization whose main purpose is to grant accreditation to assistance dog organizations based on standards of excellence in all areas of assistance dog acquisition, training, and placement. | Statute | |
| Mellin v. Northern Security Insurance Company, Inc. | 115 A.3d 799 (N.H., 2015) | 167 N.H. 544 (2015) | This is an appeal brought by Mr. Mellin because his insurer, Northern, would not cover damages to Mellin's condominium caused by the odor of cat urine emanating from another tenant's condominium. This court reverses the lower court by deciding that the policy included pollution exclusion, but was ambiguous in whether that encompassed cat urine odor, so Mellin's claim is not precluded. The case was remanded for further proceedings. Two of the five judges dissent, concluding that the word 'pollutant' was defined and excluded cat urine odor. | Case | |
| Journals Available from the U.S. and the World |
Journal of Animal and Natural Resource Law (Michigan State University College of Law)
|
Policy | |||
| PA - Cruelty - De protección a los animales domésticos | 2011 De protección a los animales domésticos |
This document provides a link to De protección a los animales domésticos (.pdf). |
Statute | ||
| Tilikum, Katina, Corky, Kasatka, and Ulises, Plaintiffs, by their Next Friends, People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, Inc | In this case of first impression, five wild-captured orcas named Tilikum, Katina, Corky, Kasatka, and Ulises (collectively, the “Plaintiffs”), seek a declaration that they are held by the Defendants in violation of Section One of the Thirteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States, which prohibits slavery and involuntary servitude. Plaintiffs were forcibly taken from their families and natural habitats, are held captive at SeaWorld San Diego and SeaWorld Orlando, denied everything that is natural to them, subjected to artificial insemination or sperm collection to breed performers for Defendants’ shows, and forced to perform, all for Defendants’ profit. As such, Plaintiffs are held in slavery and involuntary servitude. Plaintiffs also seek an injunction freeing them from Defendants’ bondage and placing them in a habitat suited to their individual needs and best interests. | Pleading |
