Results
| Title | Citation | Alternate Citation | Agency Citation | Summary | Type |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| AK - Endangered Species - Endangered and Threatened Species | AS § 16.20.180 - 210 | AK ST § 16.20.180 - 210 | This Alaska statute provides that the state shall take measures to preserve the habitat of species or subspecies which, are threatened with extinction due to habitat loss, overutilization, disease, predation, or other human or natural factors. Species recognized as endangered or threatened also gain habitat protection on state lands. Taking of a listed species without permit incurs a misdemeanor. | Statute | |
| U.S. v. Bronx Reptiles, Inc. | 217 F.3d 82 (2nd Cir. 2000) | 217 F.3d 82 (2nd Cir. 2000) |
After defendant received a shipment of dead frogs, he was convicted of violating a portion of the Lacey Act, 18 U.S.C.S. § 42(c), which made it a misdemeanor to knowingly cause or permit any wild animal to be transported to the United States under inhumane or unhealthful conditions. Defendant appealed, and judgment was reversed and remanded with instructions to enter a judgment of not guilty. The government failed to meet its burden to prove not only that the defendant knowingly caused or permitted the transportation to the United States of a wild animal, but also that the defendant knew the conditions under which the frogs was transported were "inhumane or unhealthful." |
Case | |
| Martinez v. Robledo | 147 Cal.Rptr.3d 921 (Cal.App. 2 Dist.) | 210 Cal.App.4th 384; 2012 WL 5208537 (Cal.App. 2 Dist.) |
These two consolidated California appeals address the measure of damages for the wrongful injury to a companion animal. Both respondents filed motions in limine concerning the issue of damages in the cases and, in both case, the trial court limited the measure of damages to the market value of the dogs. On appeal, the appellants argued that the measure of damages should go beyond market value to cover the reasonable costs of the pets' treatment. The appellate court found the recent case of Kimes v. Grosser (2011) 195 Cal.App.4th 1556 (decided after these appeals were filed) persuasive (where the court held that a plaintiff can recover reasonable and necessary costs where a pet is wrongfully injured). The court reasoned that otherwise, the injured animal's owner would bear the burden of all the costs of treatment, regardless of the wrongdoer's conduct. Moreover, this ruling reflects a basic principle of tort law - to make a plaintiff whole again - and accords with the different way animals, as property, are treated in the criminal arena. Thus, the court agreed with Kimes that allowing a pet owner to recover reasonable and necessary costs related to the treatment of an animal wrongfully injured is an appropriate measure of damages. |
Case | |
| IN - Animal Sacrifice - THE KERALA ANIMALS AND BIRDS SACRIFICES PROHIBITION ACT, 1968 | 20 of 1968 | This law, specific to the state of Kerala, prohibits the sacrifice of animals and birds within the precincts of temples. No persons may officiate at, perform, or participate in an animal sacrifice - it is a criminal offence. | Statute | ||
| Non-US Topical Introductions | Policy | ||||
| Canada - Ontario - Dog Owners' Liability Act | R.S.O. 1990, c. D.16, s. 1 - 20(4) | This Ontario, Canada set of laws comprises the Dog Owners' Liability Act. The main thrust of the law is to establish that an owner is liable for damages if his or her dog bites or attacks another person or domestic animal. Proceedings may be commenced in the Ontario Court of Justice against an owner of a dog if it is alleged that the dog attacked or bitten another person or domestic animal, or if the dog has behaved in a manner that poses a menace to the safety of persons or domestic animals. A court may then order the destruction of the dog, or measures for more effective control of the dog (leash restraint, muzzling, etc.). The Act also bans the owning, breeding, importing, or transferring of pit bull dogs in Ontario, save for dogs grandfathered in before the Act took effect in 2005 (then the dog is a "restricted pit bull" subject to further laws). | Statute | ||
| Moden v. U.S. Fish and Wildlife | 2008 WL 4763025 (D.Or.) |
Plaintiffs filed claim against the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (“FWS”) alleging arbitrary and capricious agency action under the Administrative Procedure Act (“APA”) and failure to perform a nondiscretionary act under the Endangered Species Act (“ESA”). The United States District Court, D. Oregon, granted Defendants’ motion to dismiss and denied Plaintiffs’ request for leave to amend, and Plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment, finding that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction over Plaintiffs’ APA and ESA claims, and that it remains without jurisdiction to mandate action by the agency if rulemaking has not been initiated by the FWS at its discretion, regardless of whether a determination resulting from a five year review suggests a listing status should be changed or should remain the same. |
Case | ||
| US - AWA - Part 2. Regulations. Subparts A to I | 9 C.F.R. § 2.1 to .134 | This set of the regulations sets out the requirements and process for licensing and registration of dealers, exhibitors and research facilities. | Administrative | ||
| Fuller v. Vines | 36 F3d 65 (9th Cir. 1994) |
Motion for leave to amend § 1983 civil rights complaint to add claims that police officer violated Fourth Amendment by shooting pet dog and by pointing gun at one plaintiff was denied and the United States District Court for the Northern District of California entered summary judgment in favor of police officers and city. Plaintiffs appealed. The Court of Appeals held that: (1) killing of pet dog stated Fourth Amendment violation, but (2) no seizure of plaintiff occurred when police pointed gun. |
Case | ||
| OH - Initiatives - Issue 1 Prohibition of the hunting of mourning doves | Issue 1, 1998 (failed) | This state issue, rejected by voters in 1998, would have amended Section 1531.02 of the Ohio Revised Code to prohibit the hunting or taking of mourning doves in Ohio. The proposed law specifically would have amended Section 1531.02 of the Ohio Revised Code by adding the words "NO PERSON SHALL HUNT OR TAKE A MOURNING DOVE." The measure failed with only 40.5% voting for the proposition. | Statute |