Results
Title |
Author | Citation | Alternate Citation | Agency Citation | Summary | Type |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Conti v. ASPCA | 353 N.Y.S.2d 288 (N.Y.,1974) | 77 Misc.2d 61 (1974) |
A parrot flew away from its original owner, was found and adopted by the plaintiff, and subsequently seized by the ASPCA for return to the original owner. The finder-plaintiff brought an action of replevin to recover possession of the parrot. The court found that the bird found was the same as the one lost and it did not extinguish the original owner's right to possession by reverting to a wild state. |
Case | ||
| CONTRADICTIONS WILL OUT: ANIMAL RIGHTS VS. ANIMAL SACRIFICE IN THE SUPREME COURT | Henry Mark Holzer | 1 Animal L. 83 (1995) | A professor of law at Brooklyn Law School explains why, in the controversial Lukumi case, the Supreme Court ruled that the religious sacrifice of animals falls under the protective umbrella of the Free Exercise Clause. The author criticizes the court for abandoning the belief-action dichotomy in Free Exercise jurisprudence and places blame on the lack of protection given to animals by current laws. | Article | ||
| Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species | 27 U.S.T. 1087 |
CITES is a mature international treaty which, as of the Fall of 2002, has over 150 countries as members. The purpose of the treaty is to control the international movement of listed wild plants and animals, alive or dead, whole or parts there of ("specimens" of species) in such a manner as to be assured that the pressures of international trade do not contribute to the endangerment of the listed species. States must issue permits for international movement of listed species. |
Treaty | |||
| Convention on Trade in Endangered Species (CITES) | David Favre |
Brief Summary of Convention on Trade in Endangered Species (CITES)
|
Topical Introduction | |||
| Conway v. Pasadena Humane Society | 52 Cal.Rptr.2d 777 (1996) | 45 Cal.App.4th 163, 96 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 3304, 96 Daily Journal D.A.R. 5357 |
This appeal presents the question of whether animal control officers can lawfully enter a home, absent a warrant or consent, to seize and impound the homeowner's dog for violation of a leash law. The court held that that the Fourth Amendment precludes such conduct, where entry of home to seize dog was not justified by exigent circumstances. Further, the statute and municipal ordinance permitting animal control officers to impound dog found on private property did not authorize seizure in violation of Fourth Amendment. |
Case | ||
| Coos County Bd. of County Com'rs v. Norton | Slip Copy, 2006 WL 1720496 (D.Or.) |
Alleging violations of the Endangered Species Act (ESA) and the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), plaintiffs sought to compel defendants to publish in the Federal Register proposed and final rules to remove the Washington, Oregon and California population of the marbled murrelet (a coastal bird) from the list of threatened species. Plaintiffs alleged that after defendants completed a five year review of the murrelet, defendants violated the ESA and the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) by failing to publish proposed and final rules "delisting" the murrelet. However, the court found that under the subsection upon which plaintiffs rely, the Secretary need publish a proposed regulation only after receiving a petition to add or remove species from the lists of threatened and endangered species and making certain findings. Because plaintiffs have not alleged or demonstrated that they filed a petition, they cannot establish that the Secretary has a duty to publish a proposed regulation. Thus, defendant's motion to dismiss was granted. |
Case | |||
| Coos County Board of County Com'rs v. Kempthorne | 531 F.3d 792 (9th Cir., 2008) | 08 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 7939, 2008 WL 2522202 (C.A.9 (Or.)) | The issue here is whether FWS has an enforceable duty promptly to withdraw a threatened species from the protections of the ESA after a five-year agency review mandated by the Act found that the species does not fit into a protected population category. The species at issue here are murrelets-small, dove-sized birds that feed primarily on sea life and nest in coastal mature and old-growth forests. This Court concluded that Coos County has not alleged a failure to perform a nondiscretionary act or duty imposed by the ESA, whether premised on the petition process deadlines or on the agency's more general duty to act on its own determinations. | Case | ||
| Cordoves v. Miami-Dade Cnty | 92 F. Supp. 3d 1221 (S.D. Fla. 2015) | 2015 WL 1131684 (S.D. Fla. 2015) | This case arises out of an incident at the Dadeland Mall, during which plaintiff had a confrontation with security personnel that ended with her arrest. The incident was precipitated by the presence of a small dog plaintiff was toting in a stroller while shopping with her mother and daughter. Plaintiff alleged discrimination in public accommodations under the ADA, and excessive force in violation of the Fourth Amendment under § 1983. Defendants moved for summary judgment.The District Court denied the motion in part and granted the motion in part, finding that an issue of material fact existed as to whether the dog was a service animal; that the patron was precluded from bringing negligence claim premised on intentional torts; that officer's use of force in arresting patron was de minimis; and that the right to be free from officer's application of force was not clearly established. | Case | ||
| Cornett v. Red Stone Group, Inc. | Cornett v. Red Stone Group, 41 N.E.3d 155 (Ohio Ct. App. 2015) |
Cornett filed suit against Red Stone Group, Inc. alleging negligence and premise liability. Cornett argued that Red Stone Group maintained a defective gate and fence that led to the Red Stone Group's horses escaping and trampling Cornett which caused her serious injuries. The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of Red Stone Group on the basis of that it was immune from liability under the equine activities statute. Cornett appealed the court’s decision and the court of appeals affirmed the trial court’s decision. Ultimately, the court of appeals needed to determine whether or not Red Stone Group was immune from liability under the statute. In order to determine whether or not Red Stone Group was covered under the statute, the court of appeals looked to the language of the statute. After looking at the language of the statute, the court of appeals found that Cornett was an “equine activity participant” at the time of her injury and therefore Red Stone Group could not be liable for her injuries. Finally, the court of appeals affirmed the trial court’s decision and granted summary judgment for Red Stone Group. |
Case | |||
| Coroneos v. Montgomery County | 869 A.2d 410 (Md. 2005) | 161 Md.App. 411 (2005) |
Pursuant to a warrant, the police seized all un-cared for animals owned by a reptile distributor. The distributor was told he could appeal the seizure, but must prepay the costs of boarding and caring for the animals pending the appeal. The trial court granted summary judgment in favor fo the county and the Court of Special Appeals reversed, holding the owner was not required by the county code to prepay the costs of care as a condition for an appeal. |
Case |
