United States

Displaying 2021 - 2030 of 4857
Titlesort descending Summary
KS - Racing - 74-8801 to 74-8842. Parimutuel Wagering This statute creates the Kansas Racing and Gaming Commission. The Commission has the power to observe and inspect all racetracks and is responsible for promulgating regulations including regulations establishing what drugs and at what levels are allowable in the blood or urine of horses and greyhounds. The statute specifies age limits for horses and greyhounds to be able to race. Horses cannot compete until they reach 2 years of age. Greyhounds cannot compete in a race until they reach the age of 15 months. In order to construct or own a racetrack facility a license must be obtained from the Commission.
KS - Rehabilitation - 32-953. Rehabilitation permit This Kansas law states that a rehabilitation permit is required to perform wildlife rehabilitation services.
KS - Vehicle, animal - 60-5401. Immunity for damage to motor vehicle This Kansas law, effective in 2018, provides immunity for civil liability for damage to the motor vehicle if a person enters a motor vehicle to remove a vulnerable person or domestic animal. “Domestic animal” means a dog, cat or other animal that is domesticated and may be kept as a household pet, but does not include livestock. Several conditions must be met before a person is granted immunity under the law.
KS - Veterinarian Issues - Professional Conduct The following represents acts by a Kansas licensed veterinarian that shall be considered unprofessional conduct and shall constitute grounds for disciplinary action against the licensee.
KS - Veterinary - ARTICLE 8. REGISTRATION OF VETERINARIANS. 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.
KS - Wildlife - 32-956. Wildlife importation permits This Kansas statute declares that the secretary will adopt rules and regulations that prohibit certain wildlife from the waters and land of the state. The statute then lists the criteria for such rules and regulations.
KS - Wildlife Possession - Chapter 32. Wildlife, Parks and Recreation. Knowingly capturing, killing, or possessing for profit, or selling, bartering, purchasing or offering to do so as well as the shipping or transportation of wildlife constitutes the commercialization of wildlife. The possession of listed wildlife for commercial purposes is considered a "nonperson" misdemeanor or felony depending on whether the aggregate value is greater than $1000. Commerce in protected wildlife (including eagles) incurs at least the minimum fine and may also result in the confiscation of equipment, license sanctions, and restitution.
Kuba v. 1-A Agr. Ass'n


Activist sued a state-created agricultural association under 42 USC § 1983 to challenge a rule that limited demonstrations to “free expression zones” outside a state-owned performance facility. The Court of Appeals held that the association was not entitled to Eleventh Amendment immunity. It held that the parking lots and walkways were public fora, and thus time, place and manner restrictions on speech had to be content-neutral and narrowly tailored to serve an important government interest. The Court held that the state did not have a significant interest in restricting protestors to these zones. The rule was not narrowly tailored enough to promote the association's interest in preventing traffic congestion, and restricted more speech than was necessary. Therefore, the rule unduly infringed free speech on its face.
Kuehl v. Cass County

The issue before the Iowa Supreme Court was whether hog confinement buildings could be considered “agricultural” so as to fall within the state's agricultural zoning exemption. The court held that h

og confinement buildings were within the agricultural building exemption and thus exempt from county zoning regulations.
Kuehl v. Sellner Five Plaintiffs Tracey K. Kuehl, Lisa K. Kuehl, Kris A. Bell, Nancy A. Harvey, John T. Braumann, and the Animal Legal Defense Fund filed a complaint against Defendants Pamela Sellner, Tom Sellner, and Cricket Hollow Zoo, seeking declaratory and injunctive relief. The Plaintiffs claimed that the Defendants violated the Endangered Species Act (ESA), by holding captive endangered species specifically the lemurs and tigers housed at Cricket Hollow Zoo. The United States District Court, N.D. Iowa, Eastern Division ordered the Defendants, to transfer the lemurs and tigers in their possession “to an appropriate facility which is licensed by the USDA and is capable of meeting the needs of the endangered species.” The Defendants proposed transporting the lemurs to Special Memories Zoo in Hortonville, Wisconsin, and transporting the tigers to the Exotic Feline Rescue Center in Centerpoint, Indiana. The Plaintiffs claimed that the proposed placements did not comply with the Court's Order and proposed that the lemurs be placed with the Prosimian Sanctuary in Jacksonville, Florida, and the tigers be transported to the Wild Animal Sanctuary in Keenesburg, Colorado. The Court held that the Special Memories Zoo was capable of meeting the lemurs' needs and should be transported there as the Defendant’s proposed. The court reasoned that even if the Court found Special Memories incapable of meeting the lemurs' needs, the Prosimian Sanctuary as proposed by the Plaintiff's was not licensed by the USDA. The Court also held that the endangered tigers should be transferred to the Exotic Feline Rescue Center as the Defendant’s proposed. The court reasoned that the center was capable of meeting of the needs of the tigers. Therefore the Court approved the Defendants' proposed placement of the lemurs and tigers.

Pages