Results
Displaying 4901 - 4910 of 6844
Title |
Author | Citation | Alternate Citation | Summary | Type |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Recchia v. City of Los Angeles Dep't of Animal Servs. | 889 F.3d 553 (9th Cir. 2018) | 18 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 3984, 2018 Daily Journal D.A.R. 3901 | Petitioner Recchia sued the City of Los Angeles and animal control officers for violations of the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment and claims for state law tort violations. The claims arise from the 2011 warrantless seizure of Recchia's 20 birds (18 pigeons, one crow, and one seagull) kept in boxes and cages on the sidewalk where he lived (Recchia was homeless at the time). Animal control officers investigated Recchia after a complaint that a homeless man had birds at his campsite. Officers found cramped and dirty cages with several birds in "dire physical condition," although there is evidence the birds were in that condition before Recchia possessed them. After officers impounded the birds, a city veterinarian decided that all the pigeons needed to be euthanized due to concerns of pathogen transmission. Recchia discovered that the birds had been euthanized at his post-seizure hearing that was four days after impounded of the animals. At that hearing, the magistrate found the seizure was justified under the operative anti-neglect law (California Penal Code § 597.1(a)(1)). This § 1983 and state claim action followed. The district court adopted the magistrate judge's report and granted summary judgment for the defendants. On appeal, this court first examined whether the seizure of the healthy-looking birds was justified. The court held that hold that there was a genuine factual dispute about whether the healthy-looking birds posed any meaningful risk to other birds or humans at the time they were seized (it affirmed the dismissal as to the seizure of the birds that outwardly appeared sick/diseased). With regard to seizure of the birds without a pre-seizure hearing, the court applied the Matthews test to determine whether Recchia's rights were violated. Looking at the statute under which the birds were seized (Section 597.1), the court found that the law does afford adequate due process for Fourteenth Amendment purposes. As to other claims, the court granted Recchia permission to amend his complaint to challenge the city policy of not requiring a blood test before euthanizing the birds. The court also agreed with the lower court that the officers had discretionary immunity to state tort law claims of in seizing the animals. The district court's summary judgment was affirmed on Fourteenth Amendment and state tort claims against the officers, but vacated summary judgment on the Fourth Amendment claims against the animal control officers and constitutional claims against the city. | Case | |
| Recent Animal Law Amendments and Cases |
Animal Law Amendments and Significant Cases |
Policy | |||
| RECONCILING POLAR BEAR PROTECTION UNDER UNITED STATES LAWS AND THE INTERNATIONAL AGREEMENT FOR THE CONSERVATION OF POLAR BEARS | Donald C. Baur | 2 Animal L. 9 (1996) | This article outlines the history of the international Polar Bear Agreement and the issues arising from its provisions. It also points out inconsistencies between the international agreement and U.S. laws, such as the Marine Mammal Protection Act and the Coastal Zone Management Act, and offers suggestions to reconcile inconsistent provisions. | Article | |
| RECONCILING THE MIGRATORY BIRD TREATY ACT WITH EXPANDING WIND ENERGY TO KEEP BIG WHEELS TURNING AND ENDANGERED BIRDS FLYING | Robert J. Martin & Rob Ballard | 20 Animal L. 145 (2013) | The Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) has proven invaluable in minimizing the destruction of the 240 avian species listed by its enforcement agency, the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS), as “endangered or threatened” or “birds of conservation concern.” Recently, however, the Act is faced with a new challenge: How can it continue to achieve its objective when a highly desirable domestic source of sustainable energy—wind power—is experiencing unprecedented growth? Ever-larger wind projects propelled by giant turbines have become a serious danger to the existence of migratory birds and their natural habitats. Yet most policy makers strongly welcome and support continued expansion of wind power, and are reluctant to permit impediments to halt or restrict its growth. The growing conflict between the goals of protecting migratory birds and producing more wind power should be reconciled. This Article proposes three basic policy revisions: (1) authorization for the FWS to issue incidental take permits to wind power developers; (2) creation of a uniform standard for assessing avian impacts; and (3) amendment of the MBTA to allow for civil sanctions and citizen suits. Although “big wheels in the sky” must keep on turning and expanding to help reduce America’s dependence on fossil fuels and foreign energy sources, this worthy objective must be pursued without weakening federal protection of migratory birds. | Article | |
| Recovery of "Non-Economic Damages" for Wrongful Killing or Injury of Companion Animals: A Judicial and Legislative Trend | Sonia S. Waisman and Barbara R. Newell | 7 Animal L. 45 (2001) |
Ms. Waisman and Ms. Newell discuss the recent legislative actions regarding recovery of non-economic damages for companion animals. They explore the history of human loss of consortium and companionship damages, the role nonhuman animals play in human lives, and propose legislation that will adequately reflect nonhuman animals' place in our society. |
Article | |
| RECOVERY OF COMMON LAW DAMAGES FOR EMOTIONAL DISTRESS, LOSS OF SOCIETY, AND LOSS OF COMPANIONSHIP FOR THE WRONGFUL DEATH OF A COMPANION ANIMAL | Steven M. Wise | 4 Animal L. 33 (1998) | Mr. Wise analyzes experiential recognition of the bond that exists between human companions and companion animals in the context of possible recovery of tort damages for the wrongful death of a companion animal. He demonstrates that companion animals are often seen by their human companions as members of the family (holding much the same status as children). He discusses historical aspects of the common law as they relate to current tort law in such cases and examines the tension that exists between principle and policy. | Article | |
| Recovery of the Gray Wolf under the ESA | Catherine J. Archibald |
Brief Summary of the Recovery of the Gray Wolf under the Endangered Species Act (ESA)
|
Topical Introduction | ||
| Red Wolf Coalition v. United States Fish and Wildlife Service | 210 F. Supp. 3d 796 (E.D.N.C. 2016) | 2016 WL 5720660 (E.D.N.C. Sept. 29, 2016) | The plaintiffs, Red Wolf Coalition, filed suit against the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) alleging that USFWS had violated Sections 4, 7, and 9 of the Endangered Species Act (ESA) and also failed to comply with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) when it allowed for the lethal or non-lethal taking of red wolves on private land. In response to the plaintiffs’ claim, USFWS asked the court to limits its review to the administrative record arguing that any discovery outside the administrative record would violate the Administrative Procedure Act’s scope and standard or review. The court decided not to limit the scope of review, stating that the plaintiffs’ claims fell under the citizen suit provision of the ESA and those types of law suits allow for discovery. Also, plaintiffs made a motion for a preliminary injunction to stop USFWS from conducting or authorizing the take of wild red wolves on private land whether or not the wolf has been a threat to humans, pets, or livestock. In order for the plaintiffs’ to succeed on this motion, the plaintiffs needed to make a clear showing of four elements: (1) plaintiffs’ are likely to succeed on the merits of the claim, (2) plaintiffs are likely to suffer irreparable harm in the absence of preliminary relief, (3) the balance of equities tips in plaintiffs’ favor, and (4) an injunction is in the public interest. The court found that the plaintiffs’ were able to establish the first element because plaintiffs demonstrated that USFWS failed to adequately provide for the protection of red wolves by allowing for the taking of red wolves on private land, which may jeopardize the population’s survival in the wild. Next, the court held that plaintiffs’ were able to establish the irreparable harm requirement based on the fact that the threat to the red wolf population would clearly decrease their ability to enjoy red wolves in the wild and the possibility of the “decline or extinction of the species would cause them to suffer irreparable harm.” Lastly, the court found that granting the preliminary injunction would be in the public interest because “the equitable scales are always tipped in favor of the endangered or threatened species.” For those reasons, the court granted plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction. | Case | |
| Redcliffe, St Mary the Virgin (Petition) | [2020] ECC Bri 1 | Finding that a 'non-lethal' electric shock pest control system set up to deter pigeons in a church may cause suffering, but the suffering is not unnecessary suffering under s4 of the Animal Welfare Act 2006. It was held that the conduct could not be reasonably avoided in the particular circumstances of the case, including damage caused to a grade I listed church, the chance of distress caused by the fouling of the birds, and that other pest control methods had failed. "Any suffering caused would be for a legitimate purpose ... that is the protection of property. ...the suffering is proportionate to preserve the building and to avoid distress to staff, visitors to the church and members of the congregation." | Case | ||
| Redefining The Modern Circus: A Comparative Look At The Regulations Governing Circus Animal Treatment And America's Neglect Of Circus Animal Welfare | Jacqueline Neumann | 36 Whittier L. Rev. 167 | First, this article explains how animals have entertained people for centuries. Next, the article addresses how animals are treated in the modern circus industry. Then, this article discusses the laws governing the circus industry both in the United States and in other countries. Lastly, this article explains where the animals may retire if the circus industry is prohibited from holding animals captive. | Article |
