Results
Displaying 5991 - 6000 of 6649
| Title | Citation | Alternate Citation | Summary | Type |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| U.S. v. Jim | 888 F. Supp. 1058 (D. Or. 1995) |
Court considered defendant's claim based on newly enacted RFRA. Court finds defendant's asserted need to kill 12 eagles a year would decimate eagle population in Oregon. While not perfect, court finds the eagle permit system the least restrictive means to achieve the compelling need of protecting eagles. For further discussion on religious challenges to the BGEPA by Native Americans, see Detailed Discussion of Eagle Act. |
Case | |
| Harby v. Harby | 331 So. 3d 814 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2021) | This Florida case involves an appeal of a final judgment of dissolution of marriage. With respect to animal law, the wife appealed the trial court's distribution of family dogs, Liberty and Nico, to the former husband. According to testimony, the dogs were bonded to each other. The former wife testified that the family adopted Liberty "to be an emotional support dog" and was her constant companion. The former wife testified that she cared for the dogs when they were adopted in 2013 and 2014 until the parties separated in 2017. Since that separation, the dogs have been in the husband's possession and care. The trial court determined that the dogs were marital property and that the wife appeared to be in good health with no physical or mental disabilities. Further, both parties agreed the dogs should not be separated from each other and the court found the dogs had been in the husband's possession since the parties separated. On appeal, the wife argues that the trial court's distribution of the family dogs to Former Husband was arbitrary, capricious, and unsupported by the record. In particular, the wife contends that one of the dogs is her emotional support animal and former husband expressed no desire or claim for the dogs in testimony. The court first observed that Florida is not one of the handful of states with statutes that give pets a special property status in distribution of marital assets. Instead, animals are considered personal property. Here, the court found both parties have cared for the dogs at times and the husband cared for them after the parties separated in 2017. And, while the court found that Liberty was "emotionally comforting," there was no evidence that the former wife had a disability and that Liberty provided emotional support to alleviate an effect of such disability. Thus, the role Liberty played was to provide comfort and companionship like most household pets. Since the trial court also considered each party's sentimental interest in the pets, including the children's attachment since they resided primarily with the former husband, there was no showing that the court abused its discretion in awarding the dogs to former husband. Thus, the appellate court concluded that the trial court acted within its discretion by awarding the family dogs to the former husband. | Case | |
| Revista Brasileira de Direito Animal Volume 15 |
SUMÁRIOEDITORIALHeron Gordilho………………………………………………. Doutrina Internacional/International Pappers1. ENSINANDO ÉTICA PÓS-HUMANISTA NA FACULDADE DE DIREITO: As dimensões de raça, cultura e gênero na resistência estudantil |
Policy | ||
| AZ - Veterinary - Chapter 21. Veterinarians. | A. R. S. § 32-2201 - 2297 | AZ ST § 32-2201 - 2297 | 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 |
| New Hampshire General Laws 1878: Trespasses, Malicious Acts, etc. | 1878 N.H. Laws 281 | The New Hampshire session laws from 1878, chapter 281, covers the state's cruelty to animals laws. Specifically, the law covers cruelty to animals and the treatment of animals during transportation. | Statute | |
| United States of America v. Hale | 113 Fed.Appx. 108 | 2004 WL 2367994 |
A couple owned and operated a caviar business. They were convicted of violating the Lacey Act by purchasing and selling paddlefish eggs during the closed season, falsifying records and operating a fish dealership without a license. The Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction. This Judgment was Vacated by Hale v. U.S ., 125 S.Ct. 2914 (2005). |
Case |
| Prior Cases of the Month 2010 to 2016 | This document contains cases of the month from 2010 - 2016. | Policy | ||
| Casebook Update |
Updated material for David Favre, Animal Law, 3rd edition (2019) |
Basic page | ||
| AK - Initiatives - Ballot Measure 3 (bear baiting or feeding) | 2004 Ballot Measure 3 | This Alaska ballot measure was defeated in the November 2004 election. It would have made it illegal for a person to bait or intentionally feed a bear for purposes of hunting, viewing, or photographing the bear. A person who violated this proposed law would have been guilty of a Class A misdemeanor, punishable by up to one-year imprisonment and a fine of up to $10,000. It failed with only 43.3% of the vote. | Statute | |
| WI - Fur - 29.627. Domestic fur-bearing animal farms | W. S. A. 29.627 | WI ST 29.627 | This Wisconsin law states that fur farming constitutes an "agricultural pursuit." Any such animals raised in captivity are domestic animals for purposes of ownership, possession, and taxation. | Statute |