|
TX - Trusts - Chapter 112. Creation, Validity, Modification, and Termination of Trusts. |
This Texas statute comprises the state's pet trust law. A trust may be created to provide for the care of an animal alive during the settlor's lifetime. The trust terminates on the death of the animal or, if the trust is created to provide for the care of more than one animal alive during the settlor's lifetime, on the death of the last surviving animal. The law also provides a distribution schedule for the trust's remaining assets. |
|
TX - Veterinary - Chapter 801. 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. |
|
TX - Wildlife - Subchapter H. Permits to Control Wildlife Protected by This Code. |
This statute allows an individual to apply to a local municipality to receive a permit to destroy wildlife that is posing a serious risk to agricultural interests or public safety. This provision relates to a section that disallows the killing of eagles save for this exception. |
|
TX - Wildlife, wolves - Subchapter B. Nongame Animals |
Under these Texas statutes, no person may hunt, sell, buy or possess a live or dead bat, with exceptions. A violation is a Class C misdemeanor. It is a felony to possess, transport, receive, or release a live wolf in Texas (with exceptions). It is a class B misdemeanor to sell a living armadillo in Texas (with exceptions). |
|
TX- Circus, entertainment animals - Subchapter B. Care of Animals by Circuses, Carnivals, and Zoos |
[Note: §§ 169.41 to 169.48 were repealed eff. Nov. 13, 2016. This information is provided for historical purposes only.] 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. |
|
TX- Dangerous Animals - G. Caging Requirements and Standards for Dangerous Wild Animals. |
This regulation establishes caging requirements and minimum standards of care for "dangerous wild animals," including: gorillas, chimpanzees, orangutans, baboons, lions, tigers, cheetahs, ocelots, cougars, leopards, jaguars, bobcats, lynxes, servals, caracals, hyenas, bears, coyotes, jackals, and all hybrids thereof. |
|
U.S. ex rel. Haight v. Catholic Healthcare West |
The plaintiffs, In Defense of Animals and Patricia Haight brought suit against the defendants under the False Claims Act. In 1997, defendant Michael Berens, Ph.D., submitted a grant application to the NIH in which he sought federal funding for a project to develop a canine model to study glioma, a form of human brain cancer, and attempted to create a process for implanting gliomas in the brains of beagles. The district court granted summary judgment to the defendants, holding that the plaintiffs failed to produce sufficient evidence from which a reasonable jury could find that the challenged grant application statements were objectively false.
|
|
U.S. ex rel. Haight v. Catholic Healthcare West |
The plaintiffs, In Defense of Animals and Patricia Haight brought suit against the defendants, Michael Berens, the principal research investigator of the study in question, and the Barrow Neurological Institute, St. Joseph’s Hospital and Medical Center, Catholic Healthcare West Arizona, and Catholic Healthcare West, his employers, under the False Claims Act. In 1997, defendant Michael Berens, Ph.D., submitted a grant application to the NIH in which he sought federal funding for a project to develop a canine model to study glioma, a form of human brain cancer, and attempted to
create a process for implanting gliomas in the brains of beagles. The plaintiffs brought suit against Dr. Berens under the False Claims Act asserting that he had lied in his grant application in order to obtain NIH funding. The district court granted summary judgment to the defendants, holding that the plaintiffs failed to produce sufficient evidence from which a reasonable jury could find that the challenged grant application statements were objectively false.
In response, the plaintiffs filed a notice to appeal 51 days later, relying on a circuit court precedent allowing plaintiffs 60 days to file a notice of appeal in these types of cases.
However, an intervening Supreme Court decision declared that plaintiffs have only 30 days to file a notice to appeal in this type of case.
This case was amended and superseded by
US ex rel Haight v. Catholic Healthcare West
, 602 F.3d 949 (9th Cir., 2010).
|
|
U.S. Sportsmen's Alliance Foundation v. New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection |
The New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection, Division of Fish and Wildlife executed an administrative order preventing the issuance of bear hunting permits. Hunters and hunting organizations sought judicial review of the administrative decision. The Supreme Court of New Jersey ultimately held it was within the authority of the Environmental Protection Commissioner to approve policies of the Fish & Wildlife Council and, therefore, execute the administrative order against bear hunting permits.
|
|
U.S. v. 2,507 Live Canary Winged Parakeets |
Plaintiff U.S. sought to forfeit the Defendant parakeets on the ground that they were imported in violation of Peruvian law and consequently, in violation of the Lacey Act. The court held that, if even the "innocent owner" defense was available under the Lacey Act (which the court held it is not under the forfeiture provision of the statute), the claimant importer never attempted to independently confirm or verify that the parakeet species in question (brotogeris versicolorus) could be lawfully imported from Peru. Thus, the court held the forfeiture valid where the U.S. established by probable cause to believe the Lacey Act was violated where the testimony at trial established that Peruvian Supreme Decree No. 934-73-AG prohibits from anywhere in the national territory the exportation of wild live animals coming from the forest or jungle region.
|
