|Baker v. Middleton (unpublished opinion)|
|Baker v. McIntosh||
|Bailey v. Veitch||
|Babbitt v. Sweet Home Chapter of Communities for a Great Oregon||
(edited from Syllabus of the Court)
As relevant here, the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (ESA or Act) makes it unlawful for any person to “take” endangered or threatened species, § 9(a)(1)(B), and defines “take” to mean to “harass, harm, pursue,” “ wound,” or “kill,” § 3(19). In 50 CFR § 17.3, petitioner Secretary of the Interior further defines “harm” to include “significant habitat modification or degradation where it actually kills or injures wildlife.” Respondents, persons and entities dependent on the forest products industries and others, challenged this regulation on its face, claiming that Congress did not intend the word “take” to include habitat modification.
The Secretary reasonably construed Congress' intent when he defined “harm” to include habitat modification.
|AZ - Wildlife - Taking and Handling of Wildlife. Article 1. General Regulations||
|AZ - Veterinary - Chapter 21. Veterinarians.||
|AZ - Pet Trusts - Honorary trusts; trusts||
|AZ - Pet Sales - Title 44. Trade and Commerce. Chapter 11. Regulations Concerning Particular Businesses.||
|AZ - Ordinances - Lawful presence on private property defined (dogs)||
|AZ - Ordinances - Article 2. Board of Trustees Government After Disincorporation.||
This Arizona statute provides that the board of trustees of a city may p
ass ordinances not inconsistent or in conflict with the laws of this state. More specifically, this statute provides that the board may restrain
, under penalties, the running at large of cattle or other animals, and provide rules for impounding them, and provide for taxing dogs and penalties for the nonpayment of such taxes, or the killing of dogs running at large in the corporate limits. However, before exercising these powers, the board shall cause a resolution of intention to be recorded in minutes and then published in some daily or weekly newspaper at least two