Results

Displaying 6591 - 6600 of 6638
Title Citation Alternate Citation Agency Citation Summary Type
AR - Health - State Board of Health Rabies Regulations AR ADC 007.15.1-I to XI Ark. Admin. Code 007.15.1-I to XI These are the State Board of Health Rabies Regulations. Administrative
CA - Zoo - § 602.13. Entering animal enclosure at zoo, circus, or traveling animal exhibit; punishment; exceptions; other prosec West's Ann. Cal. Penal Code § 602.13 CA PENAL § 602.13 This law makes it an infraction for a person to enter into an animal enclosure at a zoo, circus, or traveling animal exhibit if that facility is licensed or permitted to display animals and if it posts signs prohibiting entrance into the animal enclosures. Statute
AU - Endangered/Threatened Species - Threatened Species Conservation Act 1995 (New South Wales) THREATENED SPECIES CONSERVATION ACT 1995

An Act to conserve threatened species, populations and ecological communities of animals and plants; to amend the National Parks and Wildlife Act 1974, the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 and certain other Acts; to repeal the Endangered Fauna (Interim Protection) Act 1991; and for other purposes.

Statute
Newell v. Baldridge 548 F.Supp. 39 (D.C. Wash. 1982)

Newell was a tropical fish importer who became involved in a mislabeling scheme to import endangered sea turtles.  On appeal, Newell claimed he lacked the requisite knowledge or intent because he did not directly handle the imported sea turtles, he could not have known that they were mislabeled.  The court held that substantial evidence in the record supports the findings below that Newell knew or should have known of the mislabeling of the shipments of sea turtles.  Further, the court upheld the imposition of $1,000 penalty for each violation of the Lacey Act because of the mulit-violation, mislabeling scheme and the vital public interest in deterring illegal wildlife trade.

Case
Center For Biological Diversity v. Lohn 511 F.3d 960 (C.A.9 (Wash.), 2007) 2007 WL 4532197 (C.A.9 (Wash.))

In this case, the court is asked to decide whether the federal government's policy for listing killer whales under the Endangered Species Act is invalid. The Center for Biological Diversity, along with eleven co-petitioners not parties to this appeal, petitioned the National Marine Fisheries Service to list the Southern Resident killer whale as an endangered species under the ESA. Initially, the Service issued a proposed ruling based on its DPS policy that concluded listing the Southern Resident was “not warranted” because the Southern Resident was not “significant” to its taxon. After the Center challenged this action, the district court set aside the Service's “not warranted” finding because it failed to utilize the best available scientific data when determining whether the Southern Resident was “significant” under that policy. Pursuant to the district court's order, the Service reexamined the listing petition and issued a proposed rule that recommended listing the Southern Resident as a threatened species. The Center appealed, and the Service issued a final rule listing the Southern Resident as endangered (as opposed to threatened). The Service contends that this case is now moot because it has ultimately issued a final rule listing the Southern Resident as an endangered species. This court agreed, finding that declaring the DPS Policy unlawful would serve no purpose in this case because the Service has listed the Southern Resident as an endangered species, the Center's ultimate objective.

Case
Sentencia SU056/18 Sentencia SU056/18 The Constitutional Court held unconstitutional the decision of the administrative tribunal of Cundinamarca that allowed the city of Bogota to carry out a popular consultation intended to ask residents of Bogota whether they agreed to have bullfighting in the city. The court held that the decision to invalidate such a ruling was based on the principles of legal precedent and res jusdicata. The administrative court decision was against authority established in decisions A-025 of 2015, T-296 of 2013, C-889 of 2012, y C-666 of 2010 of the constitutional court, which held that the power to prohibit bullfighting rest in Congress and local governments only have police power. Allowing a mayor to carry out a popular consultation regarding the future of bullfighting is to go against authority established by the Constitutional Court, and it violates the right to due process and the right to be treated equally by the law. Case
Death of the Monkey Ovechkin at Augusta University

 

Policy
US - Livestock - To Promulgate Additional Regulations Implementing the Humane Methods of Slaughter Act to Prevent Incidents of Inhumane Handling and the Needless Suffering of Animals at Slaughter Submitted by Animal Welfare Institute Petitioner requests that the Secretary amend Humane Methods of Slaughter Act regulations to require all slaughter establishments take a systematic approach to animal welfare by preparing and maintaining a comprehensive, written humane handling plan, and make other changes that are needed to prevent unnecessary incidents of inhumane handling at slaughter. These amendments include requiring routine testing and maintenance of stunning equipment, the availability of backup stunning devices, and employee training in animal handling. The purpose of the requested action is to protect the welfare of animals during the slaughter process and to provide safer and better working conditions for persons engaged in the slaughter industry. Read the regulation the petitioner sought to amend. Administrative
AK - Fish and Game - Chapter 05. Fish and Game Code AS § 16.05.150; § 16.05.255, § 16.05.270, § 16.05.920; § 16.05.925, § 16.05.940 AK ST § 16.05.150; § 16.05.255, § 16.05.270, § 16.05.920; § 16.05.925, § 16.05.940 These provisions concern Alaska's Department of Fish and Game (DFG). The enforcement authority is defined and another statute gives power to the Board of Game to adopt regulations for game animals. Under Sec. 16.05.920, a person may not take, possess, transport, sell, offer to sell, purchase, or offer to purchase fish, game, or marine aquatic plants, or any part of fish, game, or aquatic plants, or a nest or egg of fish or game unless permitted by regulation. "Game" is defined as any species of bird, reptile, and mammal, including a feral domestic animal, found or introduced in the state, except domestic birds and mammals. Statute
MARILYN DANTON v. ST. FRANCIS 24 HOUR ANIMAL HOSPITAL, P.C. a Washington professional services corporation (UBI 602-029-072); an

This document contains the court's instructions to the jury in the Danton v. St. Francis case that concerned the escape of a companion animal (cat) from defendant animal hospital. The cat was being boarded at the hospital at the time it escaped.

Pleading

Pages