Results
Title |
Author | Citation | Alternate Citation | Summary | Type |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Crowder v. Kitagawa | 81 F.3d 1480 (C.A.9 Hawaii,1996) | 64 USLW 2694, 5 A.D. Cases 810, 15 A.D.D. 1, 8 NDLR P 27, 96 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 2980, 96 Daily Journal D.A.R. 4956 (C.A.9 Hawaii,1996) |
The plaintiffs in this case were a class of visually-impaired persons who use guide dogs. Plaintiffs sought exemption from Hawaii's imposition of a 120-day quarantine on carnivorous animals entering the state (which necessarily included their guide dogs). Specifically, they contend Hawaii's quarantine, designed to prevent the importation of rabies, violates the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA),and their constitutional rights of travel, equal protection and substantive due process. On appeal of summary judgment, this Court held that without reasonable modifications to its quarantine requirement for the benefit of visually-impaired individuals who rely on guide dogs, Hawaii's quarantine requirement effectively prevents such persons from enjoying the benefits of state services and activities in violation of the ADA. The district court's issuance of summary judgment in favor of Hawaii, was reversed and the case was remanded to the district court for further proceedings. |
Case | |
| Cruelty, Police Shooting Pets, Domestic Violence and Hoarding | Policy | ||||
| Crump v Equine Nutrition Systems Pty Ltd t/as Horsepower | [2006] NSWSC 512 |
The plaintiffs claimed that they purchased horse feed from the first respondent and that the feed was contaminated with monensin. The second respondent manufactured the feed. They claimed that as a result, one of their horses died and five others were permanently injured so that they could not be used for the desired purpose. After addressing several factual issues, the trial judge found for the plaintiffs in regards to the issue of negligence by the second respondent and proceeded to assess damages with regard to the economic value of the horses to the plaintiffs, the cost of replacement, loss of profits and maintenance. |
Case | ||
| Crying Wolf: The Unlawful Delisting of Northern Rocky Mountain Gray Wolves from Endangered Species Act Protections | Jesse H. Alderman | 50 B.C. L. Rev. 1195 (2009) |
Abstract: Although settlers hunted gray wolves to near extinction more than a century ago, the animal remains one of the most enduring symbols of the West. In 1994, the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service authorized reintroduction of gray wolves into Idaho, Montana, and Wyoming under recovery provisions of the Endangered Species Act. Fourteen years later, the Service delisted wolves in these states, contending that the reintroduced population met the numeric and distributional criteria established for recovery in 1994. Months after a district judge enjoined the Service's 2008 delisting rule, the Service again delisted gray wolves. This Note asserts that both the 2008 and 2009 delisting rules violate provisions of the Endangered Species Act guaranteeing adequacy of state regulatory mechanisms prior to delisting, and fidelity to the best available scientific data. The Note also contends that the Service unlawfully deployed conservation tools as delisting instruments contrary to congressional intent. Lastly, the Note illuminates administrative defects in the delisting rules, namely the Service's decision to disregard its own requirement of genetic linkage among the entire gray wolf population without providing a reasoned explanation. |
Article | |
| CT - Assistance Animals - Connecticut Assistance Animal/Guide Dog Laws | C. G. S. A. § 13b-119; § 46a-42; § 46a-44; § 46a-64; § 46a-64d; § 53-330a; § 22-345; § 22-364b; § 14-300; § 17a-22ee | CT ST § 13b-119; § 46a-42; § 46a-44; § 46a-64; § 46a-64d; § 53-330a; § 22-345; § 22-364b; § 14-300; § 17a-22ee | The following statutes comprise the state's relevant assistance animal and guide dog laws. | Statute | |
| CT - Birds - Part VI. Birds | C. G. S. A. § 26-91 - 98 | CT ST § 26-91 - 98 | This Connecticut chapter deals with wild birds. Section 26-92 states that no person shall catch, kill or purchase or attempt to catch, kill or purchase, sell, offer or expose for sale or have in possession, living or dead, any wild bird other than a game bird, or purchase or attempt to purchase, sell, offer or expose for sale or have in possession any part of any such bird or of the plumage thereof except as acquired under the provisions of this chapter. In addition, the hunting or taking of bald eagles and two species of swans is prohibited. | Statute | |
| CT - Cruelty - Consolidated Cruelty Laws | C. G. S. A. § 53-242 - 254; § 29-108a - 108i; § 53a-73a, 73b; § 53a-28; § 53a-65 | CT ST §§ 53-242 - 254; § 29-108a - 108i; § 53a-73a, 73b; § 53a-28; § 53a-65 |
This Connecticut section contains the state's anti-cruelty and animal fighting provisions. Any person who overdrives, drives when overloaded, overworks, tortures, deprives of necessary sustenance, mutilates or cruelly beats or kills or unjustifiably injures any animal , or fails to give an animal in his or her custody proper care, among other things shall be fined not more than $1,000 or imprisoned not more than one year or both; a subsequent offense is a Class D felony. Any person who maliciously and intentionally maims, mutilates, tortures, wounds or kills an animal is also guilty of a Class D felony. Animal fighting is also prohibited under this section as a Class D felony. Connecticut has a cruelty to poultry law that provides that any crate or other container used for the purpose of transporting, shipping or holding for sale any live poultry must be in a sanitary condition with sufficient ventilation and warmth to prevent unnecessary suffering. Other provisions include laws against dyeing chicks and rabbits, docking horses' tails, and the use of animals, birds, or reptiles to solicit money. |
Statute | |
| CT - Cruelty - § 54-86n. Appointment of advocate in proceeding re the welfare or custody of a cat or dog. | C.G.S.A. § 54-86n | CT ST § 54-86n | This 2016 law states that, in a cruelty or welfare proceedings, the court may order, upon its own initiative or upon request of a party or counsel for a party, that a separate advocate be appointed to represent the interests of justice. That advocate can monitor the case and supply the court with information about the welfare of the cat or dog. The Department of Agriculture shall maintain a list of attorneys with knowledge of animal issues and the legal system and a list of law schools that have students, or anticipate having students, with an interest in animal issues and the legal system. Such attorneys and law students shall be eligible to serve on a voluntary basis as advocates under this section. | Statute | |
| CT - Cruelty, reporting - § 17a-100a. Reporting of neglected or cruelly treated animals. | C.G.S.A. § 17a-100a - § 17a-100c | Conn. Gen. Stat. Ann. § 17a-100a - § 17a-100c (West) | These Connecticut statutes require state employees who work with children and families to also report suspected animal harm, neglect, or cruelty. The statutes explain how the reporting should be completed and describes the implementation of training programs for employees to recognize animal abuse. The statutes also discuss the development of an annual report on actual or suspected instances of animal neglect or cruelty within the state. | Statute | |
| CT - Disaster - Evacuation of Animals During Disasters - Chapter 517. | C. G. S. A. § 28-1 | CT ST § 28-1 | In Connecticut, civil preparedness includes activities designed to minimize the effects upon the civilian population in the event of major disaster or emergency. Such measures include the nonmilitary evacuation of the civilian population, pets and service animals. | Statute |