Results
| Title | Citation | Alternate Citation | Summary | Type |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Club Gallistico de Puerto Rico Inc. v. United States | --- F.Supp.3d ----, 2019 WL 5566322 (D.P.R. Oct. 28, 2019) | Club Gallistico de Puerto Rico, Inc. (Club Gallistico) and the Asociacion Cultural y Deportiva del Gallo Fino de Pelea (Asociacion Cultural) both filed civil complaints against the United States Government. The complaints alleged that the Section 12616 amendments to the Animal Welfare Act (AWA) violated bedrock principles of federalism and rights protected under the United States Constitution. Both Club Gallistico and Asociacion Cultural are both non-profit organizations involved in the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico’s cockfighting industry. The amendments to the AWA outlawed all animal fighting ventures in which animals were moved in interstate or foreign commerce in every United States jurisdiction. These amendments extended the ban to United States territories which the Plaintiffs argued the United States did not have the authority to do. Both cases were consolidated and heard by the District Court. The Court analyzed the amendments under the Federalism doctrine, the Commerce Clause, and the Territorial Clause. Extending the ban on live-bird fighting did not violate either of the three. Further, the amendments did not violate the Tenth Amendment to the United States Constitution or any other constitutional rights such as free speech or due process. The Court ultimately denied the Plaintiffs’ Motion for Summary Judgment and Granted Defendant United States’ Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment. | Case | |
| Protect our Communities Foundation v. Salazar | 2013 WL 5947137 (Only the Westlaw citation is currently available.) | The Protect Our Communities Foundation filed a complaint challenging the United States Department of the Interior's approval of the Record of Decision approving a utility-scale wind power project arguing that it violated the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), the Federal Land Policy and Management Act (FLPMA), and the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA). But the Court held that the Department discussed reasonable alternatives, that the Decision was not an arbitrary, capricious or an abuse of discretion, and that the plaintiffs failed to demonstrate that a permit was required under the MBTA for an unintentional killing of migratory birds. | Case | |
| IN - Wild Animal - Chapter 25. Importation Permit | I.C. 14-22-25-1 - 4 | IN ST 14-22-25-1 to 4 | In Indiana, a person needs a permit to import live fish or any living wild animal into the state for release. A permit may be granted only upon proof that the animals are free of a communicable disease, will not become a nuisance, and will not cause damage to a native wild or domestic species. | Statute |
| Ranwez v. Roberts | 601 S.E.2d 449 (Ga.App., 2004) | 2004 WL 1405703 (Ga.App.), 268 Ga.App. 80 |
In this Georgia case, after sustaining severe injuries inflicted during a vicious attack by four pit bulls, Helene Ranwez sued her tenant neighbor and the owner of the rental property, Scott Roberts. The crucial question in this case was whether an out-of-possession landlord has liability for a tenant's dog bite. Roberts contended that because he had relinquished possession and control of the premises to his tenant, Glenn Forrest, he could not be held liable for Ranwez's injuries as a matter of law. In affirming the trial court's decision, the appellate court held that an out-of-possession landlord's tort liability to third persons is subject only to the statutory provisions of OCGA § 44-7-14, which makes it clear that a landlord who relinquishes possession of the premises cannot be liable to third parties for damages arising from the negligence of the tenant. |
Case |
| CO - Disaster - Part 6. Uniform Emergency Volunteer Health Practitioners Act | C. R. S. A. § 25-1.5-601 - 613 (formerly C. R. S. A. § 12-29.3-101 to 113) | CO ST § 25-1.5-601 - 613 | The Uniform Emergency Volunteer Health Practitioners Act applies to registered volunteer health practitioners and who provide health or veterinary services for a host entity during an emergency. | Statute |
| Anderson v. City of Camden | 2011 WL 4703104 (2011) |
Defendant Animal Control officers took Plaintiffs' two dogs pursuant to a pick-up order issued by a Magistrate of Kershaw County. The two dogs had a history of attacking other dogs and of running loose. Plaintiffs filed Fourth Amendment and South Carolina Tort Claims Act claims against Defendants. Court granted Defendants' motions for summary judgment because they did not violate a clearly established constitutional law, and were, therefore, entitled to qualified immunity from Plaintiffs' Fourth Amendment claim. |
Case | |
| Fund for Animals v. Kempthorne | 538 F.3d 124 (C.A.2 (N.Y.),2008) | 2008 WL 3542887 |
The Fund for Animals and others brought an action challenging public resource depredation order (PRDO) issued by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service concerning a species of migratory bird known as the double-crested cormorant. On appeal, the Second Circuit affirmed the grant of summary judgment, finding that the depredation order did not violate MBTA because the Order restricts the species, locations, and means by which takings could occur, thereby restricting the discretion exercised by third parties acting under the Order. Further, the depredation order did not conflict with international treaties (specifically the Mexico Convention) because the Treaty only mandates a close season only for game birds, which the parties agree do not include cormorants. Finally, the agency's adoption of the order was not arbitrary and capricious and complied with National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). |
Case |
| FL - Exhibition - Deformed Animals - Chapter 877. Miscellaneous Crimes. | West's F. S. A. § 877.16 | FL ST § 877.16 | This law makes it illegal to exhibit any deformed, mutilated or disfigured animal for compensation. | Statute |
| In re: DAVID M. ZIMMERMAN | 57 Agric. Dec. 1038 (1998) | 1998 WL 799196 (U.S.D.A.) | Ongoing pattern of violations establishes "history of previous violations" for purposes of 7 USCS § 2149(b), and it is appropriate to view evidence as establishing prior violations in determining appropriate level of civil penalty. | Case |
| CA - Dog, tether - § 122335. Animal control, agricultural operation, person, and reasonable period | West's Ann. Cal. Health & Safety Code § 122335 | CA HLTH & S § 122335 | This California law is the state's dog tethering provision. Under the law, no person shall tether, fasten, chain, tie, or restrain a dog, or cause a dog to be tethered, fastened, chained, tied, or restrained, to a dog house, tree, fence, or any other stationary object. A person may tether, fasten, chain, or tie a dog, but it must be no longer than is necessary for the person to complete a temporary task that requires the dog to be restrained for a reasonable period. A person who violates this chapter is guilty of an infraction or a misdemeanor. An animal control may issue a correction warning to a person who violates this chapter, requiring the owner to correct the violation, in lieu of an infraction or misdemeanor, unless the violation endangers the health or safety of the animal, the animal has been wounded as a result of the activity. | Statute |