Results
Title |
Author | Citation | Alternate Citation | Summary | Type |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Eagle Permits Issued Under 50 C.F.R. 22 et seq | Rebecca F. Wisch | Animal Legal & Historical Center |
The Federal Regulations (50 C.F.R. 22 et seq) govern the issuance of permits to take bald or golden eagles. Only under these proscribed circumstances will permits be issued to take any eagles. Included among these categories are Indian religious permits, scientific permits, falconry permit, and permits to take inactive golden eagle nests by mining operators (links pdf. versions of these applications are provided in this document). |
Article | |
| Earl v. Piowaty | 42 A.D.3d 865 (N.Y.A.D. 3 Dept.) | 2007 N.Y. Slip Op. 06212, 2007 WL 2127342 (N.Y.A.D. 3 Dept.), 839 N.Y.S.2d 861 | Plaintiffs' son was seriously injured when he was bitten in the face by a dog that belonged to defendant Susan Piowaty. Plaintiffs brought action on behalf of their son against Piowaty and the animal shelter from which Piowaty had adopted the dog two weeks prior to the incident, alleging that they had constructive notice of the dog's vicious propensities because of a minor incident earlier that week. However, this court agreed with the denial of plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment because there remains a triable issue as to the defendants' notice of the dog's vicious propensities at the time of the son's injury. | Case | |
| Earth Island Inst. v. Evans | 256 F. Supp. 2d 1064 (N.D. Cal. 2003) | Plaintiff, groups seeking to protect animals, sought to enjoin implementation of a final finding of defendant, the Secretary of Commerce and his Assistant Administrator of Fisheries, that the encirclement of dolphins with purse seine nets was not having an adverse impact on dolphin stocks as arbitrary, capricious, and an abuse of discretion. The court granted the groups' motion for preliminary injunction, enjoined the Secretary from taking any action to allow any tuna product to be labeled as "dolphin safe" that was harvested using purse seine nets, pending final disposition of the groups' action, and defined what "dolphin safe" would continue to mean. | Case | ||
| Earth Island Institute v. Brown | 865 F. Supp. 1364 (1994) |
Plaintiffs sought to prevent the Secretary of Commerce from allowing the American Tunaboat Association ("ATA") to continue killing northeastern offshore spotted dolphins that had been listed as depleted. Defendants argued that such killings were permissible under the ATA's permit, and that the MMPA provisions relied on by the plaintiffs were irrelevant to the dispute. The court concluded that Congress did not intend to allow the continued taking of dolphin species or stock, once the Secretary had determined that their population level was depleted. |
Case | ||
| Earth Island Institute v. Evans | 2004 WL 1774221 (N.D. Cal. 2004) (No reporter citation) |
The Secretary of Commerce made a final finding that the intentional deployment on or encirclement of dolphins using purse seine nets did not have a significant adverse effect on any depleted dolphin stock in the Eastern Tropical Pacific Ocean. Several organizations challenged that finding under the Administrative Procedures Act, and the matter came before this Court along with simultaneous motions for summary judgment from both the plaintiff and defendant. The Court concluded that Plaintiff's met their burden of demonstrating that they are entitled to judgment, and the finding of the Secretary is set aside. |
Case | ||
| Earth Island Institute v. Hogarth | 484 F.3d 1123 (9th Cir. 2007) | 2007 WL 1227559 (9th Cir. 2007) |
This case concerns the practice of catching yellowfin tuna by encircling dolphins with purse-seine nets. The dispute centers over whether tuna sellers may label tuna as dolphin-safe if caught with such nets. An environmental group brought suit against the Secretary of Commerce after he concluded that there was insufficient evidence to show that tuna purse seine fishing harmed depleted dolphin stocks in the Eastern Tropical Pacific Ocean (ETP). The Court of Appeals affirmed the lower court's decision that the action by the Secretary was arbitrary and capricious where the agency's decision-making process was influenced to some degree by foreign policy considerations rather than science alone. Further, the finding of no significant impact (FONSI) was not rationally connected to the best available scientific evidence. |
Case | |
| Eastep v. Veterinary Medical Examining Bd. | 539 P.2d 1144 (Or.App. 1975) | 22 Or.App. 457 (1975) |
Petitioner-veterinarian sought judicial review of veterinary medical examining board's denial of his application for renewal of his license to practice, and the permanent revocation of his right to practice veterinary medicine in Oregon. The Court held that there was ample evidence ample evidence to support board's finding that petitioner was guilty of unprofessional conduct for misrepresentation to dog owner of surgical services allegedly rendered, whether the standard adopted be that of 'clear and convincing evidence,' as petitioner urges, or that of 'reliable, probative and substantial evidence' (ORS 183.480(7)(d)), as urged by respondent. |
Case | |
| Eastern Band Cherokee - Animal Control - Sec. 19.1, Animal Control Department | Eastern Band Cherokee, Sec. 19-19.1 |
This section of the Eastern Band Cherokee Code describes the purpose of the Tribe's Animal Control Department. The Eastern Band Cherokee Animal Control Code includes Sections 19.1 through 19.7. Each section addresses a different topic within the Tribe's animal control, ranging from administrative purposes to restrictions and regulations. |
Statute | ||
| Eastern Band of Cherokee - Natural resources - Sec. 14-10.10- Cutting timber, removing rock, trapping animals | The Cherokee Code. Part II. Section 14. Article III. Sec. 14-10.10 |
This statute is intended to preserve natural resources and protect wild animals from any trapping conducted without the knowledge of a property owner or the Tribe. The language provides for both land owner through a tribal assignment or lease, as well as lands that are reserved and used exclusively by the Tribe. The language also restricts any person, firm, or corporation from engaging in this conduct without consent and knowledge from the land owner and/or the Tribe. |
Statute | ||
| Eckhart v. Department of Agriculture | 8 A.3d 401(Pa. Commw. Ct., 2010) | 2010 WL 4596316 (Pa. Commw. Ct.) |
A dog kennel operator acquired 30 dogs while under a revised notice to cease and desist operating a kennel and from buying dogs. The Commonwealth Court affirmed fines imposed by the Department of Agriculture, holding that the fines for violation of the dog law were not excessive or unreasonable; that fines for failure to comply with conditions of the revised notice were not unconstitutionally excessive or unreasonable; and that enforcement of orders by Bureau of Dog Law Enforcement pending appeal were not staid by the doctrine of equitable estoppel. |
Case |