Results
Title |
Author | Citation | Alternate Citation | Summary | Type |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| National Audubon Society, Inc. v. Davis | 307 F.3d 835 (9th Cir. 2002) | 55 ERC 1065, 33 Envtl. L. Rep. 20,058, 2 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 9815, 2002 Daily Journal D.A.R. 11,049, 2002 Daily Journal D.A.R. 13,872 |
In 1998, California voters passed Proposition 4, which restricted the use of certain kinds of traps, specifically steel-jawed leghold traps. The National Audubon Society, among other groups, challenged the statute, arguing that it was preempted by the Endangered Species Act (ESA), the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA), and the and National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act (NWRSIA). The Ninth Circuit held that the statute was preempted by the Endangered Species Act and the National Wildlife Refuge System Act. Contrary to the trapper-plaintiffs contentions, the statute, however, did not violate the Commerce Clause. |
Case | |
| National Audubon Society, Inc. v. Davis | 312 F.3d 416 (9th Cir. 2002) | 2 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 11,826 |
This order accompanies the Ninth Circuit's decision in National Audubon v. Davis, 307 F.3d 835 (9th Cir. 2002). |
Case | |
| National Cat and Dog Sterilization Program, 2023 - Colombia | National Cat and Dog Sterilization Program | This decree creates a national program of surgical sterilization of cats and dogs as an ethical method of safe birth control to reduce the risks to public health associated with stray animals, as well as reduce the quantity of abandoned, suffering, and mistreated animals. Congress also intended to protect wildlife through this decree. Institutions that provide sterilization are to keep track of and identify which animals have been sterilized, as well as provide their services "barrier free" to communities that may not otherwise be able to get their animals sterilized. Congress discussed the animal welfare issues surrounding abandonment and mistreatment, and that through lessening the amount of animals born, fewer animals may be harmed. In addition, sterilization was shown to increase the quality of life and life expectancy for the sterilized animals. | Statute | ||
| National Meat Ass'n v. Brown | 599 F.3d 1093 (C.A.9 (Cal.), 2010) | 2010 WL 1225477 (C.A.9 (Cal.)) |
This is an interlocutory appeal brought by the State of California and defendant-intervenors The Humane Society, et al., from a preliminary injunction prohibiting the enforcement of California Penal Code § 599f, which bans the slaughter and inhumane handling of nonambulatory animals, against federally regulated swine slaughterhouses. The district court granted the preliminary injunction. On appeal, the Ninth Circuit held that Federal Meat Inspection Act (FMIA) did not expressly preempt California statute banning slaughter of nonambulatory animals. On the humane handling requirement of section 599f, the court did find that Section 599f(e) prohibits dragging of unconscious downer animals which the federal law does not. However, NMA failed to show a likelihood of irreparable injury or that the balance of the equities and the public interest tip in its favor for this provision. This court found that the lower court abused its discretion in granting a preliminary injunction, and the injunction was vacated. This case was later vacated by: National Meat Ass'n v. Harris , 680 F.3d 1193 (9th Cir., 2012). |
Case | |
| National Meat Ass'n v. Harris | 680 F.3d 1193 (9th Cir., 2012) | Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 6314 |
This opinion vacates National Meat Ass'n v. Brown, 599 F.3d 1093 (9th Cir., 2010) and affirms the judgment of the district court. |
Case | |
| National Meat Ass'n v. Harris | 32 S.Ct. 965 (2012) | 2012 WL 171119 (U.S.) |
Trade association representing packers and processors of swine livestock and pork products sued the State of California for declaratory and injunctive relief barring a ban on slaughter and inhumane handling of nonambulatory animals on federally regulated swine slaughterhouses. The Supreme Court held that the Federal Meat Inspection Act (FMIA) preempted the California Penal Code provision prohibiting the sale of meat or meat product of “nonambulatory” animals for human consumption and requiring immediate euthanization of nonambulatory animals. |
Case | |
| National Wildlife Federation v. Norton | 386 F.Supp.2d 553 (D. Vt. 2005) | 61 ERC 1822 (2005) |
Conservation groups brought action against Final Rule promulgated by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to reclassify the gray wolf from endangered to threatened in most of the United States. The Rule created Eastern and Western Distinct Population segment and simultaneously downlisted them from endangered to threatened under the Endangered Species Act [ESA]. The Final Rule deviated significantly from the Proposed Rule and thus failed to provide adequate notice and opportunity for comment to the public, and the court also found the Final Rule an arbitrary and capricious application of the ESA. |
Case | |
| Nationwide Horse Carriers, Inc. v. Johnston | 519 S.W.2d 163 (Tex.,1974) |
A pregnant mare was injured during transport and lost her foal. The owner sued carrier for damages. The Court of Civil Appeals held that horse owner was not entitled to recover damages for loss of mare’s unborn foal; that award for mare's diminished ability to produce healthy foals was excessive in light of fact that she subsequently produced a foal that survived; and that horse owner was not entitled to attorney fees since the horse was considered freight. |
Case | ||
| Natural Behavior | Jeffrey Moussaieff Masson | 16 Animal L. 1 (2009) |
This introduction to Volume 16 is provided by Jeffrey Moussaieff Masson, author of such book as When Elephants Weep, and The Pig Who Sang. to the Moon. |
Article | |
| Natural Resources Defense Council v. Evans | 232 F. Supp. 2d 1003 (N.D. Cal. 2002) |
Plaintiffs, various environmental organizations and a concerned individual, sought a preliminary injunction against federal officials to prevent the United States Navy's peacetime use of a low frequency sonar system for training, testing and routine operations. The defendants temporarily enjoined from deploying Low Frequency Active Sonar until a carefully tailored preliminary injunction can be issued which would permit the use of Low Frequency Active Sonar for testing and training in a variety of ocean conditions, but would provide additional safeguards to reduce the risk to marine mammals and endangered species. |
Case |