Results
Title |
Author | Citation | Alternate Citation | Agency Citation | Summary | Type |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| CT - Vehicle - § 14-272b. Transport of dogs in pick-up trucks. Restrictions | C. G. S. A. § 14-272b | CT ST § 14-272b | This Connecticut law prohibits any person from transporting a dog in the open bed of a pick-up truck unless the dog is secured in a cage or other container to prevent it from jumping out of the truck. | Statute | ||
| CT - Vehicle - § 52-557u. Entering the passenger motor vehicle of another to remove child or animal from vehicle | C. G. S. A. § 52-557u | CT ST § 52-557u | This Connecticut law, effective in 2018, gives an affirmative defense to civil or criminal penalties for any person who enters a passenger motor vehicle of another, including entry by force, to remove a child or animal from the passenger motor vehicle provided certain criteria are met. The person must have a reasonable belief that such entry is necessary to remove the child or animal from imminent danger of serious bodily harm and use no more force than necessary under the circumstances. Additionally, the person must report the entry to law enforcement/public safety within a reasonable period of time after entry and must also take reasonable steps to ensure the health and safety of the child or animal after removing from the vehicle. | Statute | ||
| CT - Veterinary - Chapter 384. Veterinary Medicine | C. G. S. A. § 20-196 - 206 | CT ST § 20-196 - 206 | 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. | Statute | ||
| CT- Pet Shops - Sec. 22-344-21a. Prohibited sales | CT ADC § 22-344-32 - 94 | Regs. Conn. State Agencies § 22-344-32 - § 22-344-94 | This Connecticut regulation lists the animals of which the exhibition, sale or offer for sale by a pet shop is prohibited. The condition in which commercial kennel facilities, pet shops, grooming facilities, training facilities, and animal shelters must be kept are described including sanitation, health requirements, ventilation, and other structural requirements. | Administrative | ||
| Ctr. for Biological Diversity v. Haaland | 639 F. Supp. 3d 1355 (Ct. Int'l Trade 2023) | No. 22-00339, 2023 WL 3994447 (Ct. Int'l Trade June 14, 2023) | A small porpoise called the vaquita is on the verge of extinction, largely due to gillnet fishing of the totoaba fish that commonly traps and kills vaquitas as well. This fishing takes place in waters in Mexico’s territory, where the last few vaquitas live. In 2020, under the Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA), the United States banned the importation from Mexico of seafood products caught with gillnets inside the vaquita’s range. The Center for Biological Diversity, the Animal Welfare Institute, and the Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. (Plaintiffs) brought this lawsuit in 2022 against the Secretary of the U.S. Department of the Interior Deb Haaland and the U.S. Department of the Interior (Defendants). Plaintiffs argue that Defendants caused an unlawful delay responding to a 2014 letter requesting that Secretary of the Interior certify the embargo against Mexico in order to curb the fishing of the totoaba, as doing otherwise diminished the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES) by furthering the extinction of the vaquita. Plaintiffs also requested an order enjoining defendants from further delay in responding to the petition to certify Mexico, and costs and attorneys’ fees associated with the lawsuit. After settlement negotiations took place, parties reached a conditional settlement, and Secretary Haaland certified to the President that the fishing of totoaba by Mexican nationals and related killing of vaquita diminishes the effectiveness of CITES. It remains unclear whether Mexico has made progress in implementing the plan to save the vaquita, whether CITES is being implemented effectively by Mexico, and whether the President will act on the Secretary’s certification. After confirming that the Secretary of the Interior certified Mexico pursuant to the settlement agreement, parties entered into a voluntary dismissal and the court dismissed the lawsuit. | Case | ||
| Ctr. for Biological Diversity v. NSF | LEXSEE 2002 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 22315 |
The Center for Biological Diversity sought a temporary restraining order to enjoin the National Science Foundation from continuing its acoustical research in the Gulf of California. The scientists who conducted the acoustical research in the Gulf of California, which was an environmentally sensitive area, used an array of air guns to fire extremely high-energy acoustic bursts into the ocean. The sound from the air guns was as high as 263 decibels (dB) at the source. The government had acknowledged that 180 dB caused significant injury to marine mammals. The court found that the Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA), governed the activities of the scientists on the research vessel, and that any injury or harassment to marine mammals in the course of the research project in the Gulf of California, outside the territorial waters of Mexico, would violate the MMPA. |
Case | |||
| Ctr. for Biological Diversity v. Zinke | 868 F.3d 1054 (9th Cir. 2017) | 17 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 8478 (9th Cir. 2017) | In this case, the Center for Biological Diversity and Maricopa Audubon Society (collectively “CBD”) challenged the determination of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (“FWS”) that the Sonoran Desert Area bald eagle (“desert eagle”) is not a distinct population segment (“DPS”) eligible for listing under the Endangered Species Act. There are two requirements for DPS status: (1) the discreteness of the population segment in relation to the remainder of the species to which it belongs, and (2) the significance of the population segment to the species to which it belongs. Here, the parties agreed that the desert eagle population is discrete, but they disputed whether the population is significant. CBD argued that if FWS found that a population segment satisfies any of the four listed significance factors, it is required to conclude that the population segment is significant. The court held that FWS did not act arbitrarily and capriciously in concluding that the desert eagle did not satisfy significance requirement for being a DPS, even though it found that the desert eagle satisfied the persistence requirement and one significance factors. The district court's grant of summary judgment to FWS was affirmed. | Case | ||
| Cueing and Probable Cause: Research May Increase Defense Attacks on and Judicial Skepticism of Detection Dog Evidence | John J. Ensminger and L.E. Papet | Animal Legal & Historical Center |
The Supreme Court has recognized the uniquely non-intrusive nature of a canine sniff means that using dogs in certain situations does not involve a search. This has encouraged the use of detection dogs in law enforcement, and limited the costs associated with producing evidence of canine alerts in court. Nevertheless, the Supreme Court’s decisions do not mean that any claim that a dog may have alerted can justify a further search, and courts have recognized that a dog must be reliable for an alert to have this consequence. Thus, a high level of reliability must be expected of a canine team, and a failure to conduct adequate training or maintain complete records to establish that reliability will not exclude the possibility that a called alert may actually have been cued, precluding the use of the alert at trial. |
Article | ||
| CUIDADO DE LOS ANIMALES | 207 Animal Protection Law |
New comprehensive Animal Welfare Law for Spain - in spanish only. |
Statute | |||
| Cujo Goes to College: On the Use of Animals by Individuals with Disabilities in Postsecondary Institutions | Dawinder S. Sidhu | 38 U. Balt. L. Rev. 267 (Winter, 2009) |
This Article examines the extent to which animals may be used by individuals with disabilities in a particular setting--postsecondary institutions. Part I of this Article provides an introduction to Section 504, Title II, and Title III. It also summarizes the OCR guidance, which adopts the Title III service animal standards for Title II and Section 504 purposes. Part II analyzes the text and purpose of Title II and Section 504, as well as the practical realities associated with the postsecondary setting, and argues that all animals, not just the service animals of Title III, may be permissibly used by individuals with disabilities under Title II and Section 504. |
Article |