Results
Title |
Author | Citation | Alternate Citation | Summary | Type |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Farm Sanctuary, Inc. v. Department of Food & Agriculture | 74 Cal.Rptr.2d 75 (Cal.App. 2 Dist.,1998.) |
Environmental group brought suit challenging regulation allowing ritual slaughter exception to statute requiring that animals be treated humanely. The Superior Courtupheld regulation and appeal was taken. The Court of Appeal, Masterson, J., held that: (1) group had standing to sue, and (2) regulation was valid. |
Case | ||
| Farm Sanctuary, Inc. v. Veneman | 212 F.Supp.2d 280 (S.D.N.Y. 2002) |
Plaintiffs Farm Sanctuary, Inc. and Michael Baur filed this action seeking a declaratory judgment holding that the Secretary of Agriculture Ann Veneman and the United States Department of Agriculture must classify all downed livestock as adulterated pursuant to 21 U.S.C. § 342(a) and an injunction prohibiting the USDA from allowing non-ambulatory animals to be used for human consumption. Defendants have moved to dismiss the complaint, inter alia, on the grounds that plaintiffs lack standing to sue. For the reasons discussed, the Government's motion is granted. |
Case | ||
| Farmegg Products, Inc. v. Humboldt County | 190 N.W.2d 454 (Iowa 1971) |
Court held that intensive egg-laying facilities did not constitute buildings used for 'agricultural purposes' and were not exempt from county zoning ordinances. |
Case | ||
| Farnham v. Meder | 45 A.D.3d 1315 (N.Y.A.D. 4 Dept., 2007) | 2007 N.Y. Slip Op. 08529, 2007 WL 3318273 (N.Y.A.D. 4 Dept.), 845 N.Y.S.2d 619 |
In this New York case, the plaintiff commenced this negligence action seeking damages for injuries sustained when defendants' bull knocked him to the ground while plaintiff was chasing the bull from his own property. Defendants moved for summary judgment dismissing the complaint on the ground that plaintiff's activities in chasing the bull constituted primary assumption of the risk. This court concluded that Supreme Court properly denied defendants' motion. The record established that plaintiff was fully familiar with defendants' bull and had in fact chased the bull from plaintiffs' property on prior occasions. At no time had the bull ever acted aggressively toward plaintiff, and thus plaintiff had no reason to assume that the bull would do so on this particular occasion. |
Case | |
| Farrior v. Payton | 562 P.2d 779 (Hawaii, 1977) |
This Hawaii case involves a suit against owners of dog to recover for injuries sustained when the plaintiffs, in an attempt to avoid what was believed to be an imminent attack by dog, fell off a natural rock wall. Defendants' property abutted this rock wall and defendants considered those people who used the rock wall "trespassers." After defendant's motion for a directed verdict were granted, the plaintiffs appealed. On appeal, the Supreme Court observed that, in an action against an owner or harborer of a dog for injury inflicted by such animal, defendant's scienter (i. e. actual or constructive knowledge) of the vicious or dangerous propensities of the dog is (except where removed by statute) an essential element of the cause of action and a necessary prerequisite to recovery. The evidence in the record established the fact that the Payton family not only knew of their dog's propensity to run and bark at strangers utilizing the 'short-cut' via the human-made seawall and the natural rock wall, but also expected such activity from their German shepherd dog. Indeed, it was predictable that Mrs. Farrior would become frightened and would retreat to a precarious position. |
Case | ||
| Faulkner v. Watt | 661 F.2d 809 (9th Cir. 1981) |
Reaffirms that purpose of the Taylor Grazing Act (TGA) is to stabilize the livestock industry and protect the rights of sheep and cattle growers from interference and that the Secretary of the Interior may reasonably classify lands under the TGA as suitable for agriculture. |
Case | ||
| FEDERAL ANIMAL PROTECTION STATUTES | Henry Cohen | 1 Animal L. 153 (1995) | This report contains brief summaries of federal animal protection statutes, from the African Elephant Conservation Act to the Wild Free-Roaming Horses and Burros Act. While not including treaties, it does include statutes enacted to implement treaties. It includes statutes concerning animals that are not entirely, or not at all, animal protection statutes. For example, it includes a statute authorizing the eradication of predators, because one of the statute's purposes is to protect domestic and "game" animals; and it includes statutes to conserve fish, although their ultimate purpose may not be for the fishes' benefit. It also includes statutes that allow the disabled to use service animals, and even includes statutes aimed at acts of animal rights advocates. Among recent statutes included in the report are the 1992 and 1994 amendments to the Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972, section 404C of the Public Health Service Act, the 1994 amendments to the TwentyEight Hour Law, and the Wild Bird Conservation Act of 1992. | Article | |
| Federal Beekeeping Law | Ley Federal Apícola | This federal law holds applicability across the entire territory of Mexico. It serves as a comprehensive framework for treating and protecting bees, encompassing all activities related to this vital species, explicitly designating apiculture (or beekeeping) as a prioritized activity of public interest. | Statute | ||
| Federal Laws | Policy | ||||
| Federal Wildlife Law of the 20th Century | Ruth Musgrave |
This Chapter provides a review of the political, legislative and judicial trends which have shaped the formation of the "tangle" of federal wildlife and related environmental laws, from the early 1900s to the present. |
Article |