Results
Title |
Author | Citation | Alternate Citation | Summary | Type |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| CITES - Dates and Places of CITES Meetings |
The following provides meetings of the Conference of the Parties under CITES. |
Treaty | |||
| CITES - Decreto Ley 21080, 1975 (Peru) | Decreto Ley 21080, 1975 | This Decreto Ley approves and adopts the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES) into the Peruvian legal system. The main purpose of this international agreement is to ensure that international trade of specimens of wildlife does not pose a threat to their survival. | Statute | ||
| CITES - Decreto Ley 21080, 1975 - Peru | Decreto Ley 21080, 1975 | Este Decreto Ley aprueba y adopta la Convención sobre el Comercio Internacional de Especies Amenazadas de Fauna y Flora Silvestres (CITES) dentro el sistema legal peruano. El objetivo principal de este acuerdo internacional es asegurar que el comercio internacional de especímenes de vida silvestre no represente una amenaza para su supervivencia. | Statute | ||
| CITES - Non-Detriment Findings Checklist for CITES |
Quick summary of document to aid CITES Scientific Authorities in make a decision about whether a export of an appendix II species is acceptable by being non-detrimental. |
Treaty | |||
| CITES - Party States |
This is the list of Party States that are members of CITES as of July 2004. |
Treaty | |||
| CITES Conf. 9.24 |
This is the attempt by the Party States under CITES to define just what "endangered" might mean for different types of plants and animals. |
Treaty | |||
| Citizen Standing to Enforce Anti-Cruelty Laws by Obtaining Injunctions: The North Carolina Experience | William A. Reppy, Jr. | 11 Animal L. 39 (2005) |
North Carolina law authorizes citizen standing for the enforcement of anti-cruelty laws, thus supplementing criminal prosecution by means not used in any other state. Citizens, cities, counties, and animal welfare organizations can enforce animal cruelty laws through a civil injunction. This article explores the various amendments to North Carolina’s civil enforcement legislation and the present law’s strengths and weaknesses. The Author suggests an ideal model anti-cruelty civil remedies statute. |
Article | |
| Citizens for Alternatives to Animal Labs, Inc. v. Board of Trustees of State University of New York | 92 NY2d 357 (NY, 1998) |
Citizens wanted access to University records dealing with biomedical research using cats and dogs. These records were created, as required by federal Law, but access to the records was requested under state law. According to the New York Freedom of Information Act (FOIL), documents held by an “agency” should be disclosed. The lower Appellate Division held that s ince the University did not fall under the definition of “agency" under New York Public Officers Law, it was not required to turn over such documents. The New York Court of Appeals, however, found that the Appellate Division's rationale for denying FOIL disclosure was inconsistent with precedent, and that the legislative goal behind FOIL of was liberal disclosure, limited only by narrowly circumscribed specific statutory exemptions. Thus, in reversing the Appellate Division's decision, the Court of Appeals held that the records were subject to disclosure. |
Case | ||
| Citizens for Balanced Use v. Maurier | 303 P.3d 794 (Mont. 2013) | 2013 MT 166, 2013 MT 166, 370 Mont. 410, 2013 WL 3053594 |
Upon the Montana Department of Fish, Wildlife, and Parks’s decision to relocate a brucellosis-free herd of bison out of Yellowstone National Park and into tribal lands, plaintiffs sought an injunction to halt this movement until the department complied with MCA § 87-1-216. The District Court granted the plaintiffs a preliminary injunction. Upon appeal by defendants and defendant intervenors, however, the Supreme Court of Montana held that MCA § 87-1-216 did not apply and that the District Court relied on erroneous grounds for issuing a preliminary injunction under MCA § 27-19-201(2). The case was therefore reversed, the preliminary injunction vacated and the case was remanded back to the District Court.
|
Case | |
| Citizens for Better Forestry v. U.S. Dept. of Agriculture | 632 F.Supp.2d 968 (N.D.Cal.,2009) | 2009 WL 1883728 (N.D.Cal.) |
Plaintiffs Citizens for Better Forestry brought an action against Defendant U.S. Department of Agriculture alleging failure to adhere to certain procedures required by NEPA and the ESA after Defendant promulgated regulations governing the development of management plans for forests within the National Forest System upon preparation of an allegedly insufficient Environmental Impact Statement and without preparation of a Biological Assessment or consultation with the Fisheries and Wildlife Service or the National Marine Fisheries Service. On parties’ cross motions, the United States District Court granted Plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment and denied Defendant’s motion for summary judgment, finding that Plaintiffs had standing, that Defendant did not comply with its requirements under the NEPA because the Environmental Impact Statement prepared by Defendant did not adequately evaluate the environmental impacts of the proposed regulations, and that Defendant did not comply with its requirements under the ESA because Defendant did not prepare an adequate Biological Assessment. |
Case |