Results
| Title | Citation | Alternate Citation | Summary | Type |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Betts v. City of Long Beach Department of Health and Human Services |
This is a petition demanding an administrative hearing before the euthanizing of a dog. |
Pleading | ||
| Morehead v. Deitrich | 932 N.E.2d 1272 (Ind.App.,2010) | 2010 WL 3430525 |
Postal carrier sued landlord for negligence after tenant's dog bit her. The Court of Appeals affirmed summary judgment for defendant, holding that landlord did not have a duty to keep dog from biting postal carrier absent control over the property. |
Case |
| Maine v. Taylor | 106 S.Ct. 2440 (1986) | 477 U.S. 131 (1986) |
Appellee bait dealer (appellee) arranged to have live baitfish imported into Maine, despite a Maine statute prohibiting such importation. He was indicted under a federal statute making it a federal crime to transport fish in interstate commerce in violation of state law. He moved to dismiss the indictment on the ground that the Maine statute unconstitutionally burdened interstate commerce. The Court held that the ban did not violate the commerce clause in that it served legitimate local purpose, i.e., protecting native fisheries from parasitic infection and adulteration by non-native species, that could not adequately be served by available nondiscriminatory alternatives. |
Case |
| Chile - Hunting - Ley 19473, 1996 | Ley 19473, 1996 | This law regulates the hunting, capture, breeding, conservation and sustainable use of wildlife animals, with exception of those species whose preservation is regulated by the General Law on Fisheries and Aquaculture. | Statute | |
| TX - Cruelty - Chapter 829. Animal Control Officer Training | V. T. C. A., Health & Safety Code § 829.001 - 009 | TX HEALTH & S § 829.001 - 009 | This chapter concerns the appointment of animal control officers in Texas. The chapter requires that an animal control officer complete training, which includes at least a 12-hour basic animal control course and subsequent continuing education. | Statute |
| NV - Eagle - Chapter 503. Hunting, Fishing and Trapping; | N.R.S. 503.610 | NV ST 503.610 | Nevada has a law that specifically protects both bald (American) and golden eagles. The statute makes it illegal to possess or capture by whatever means either species. The law does allow for the taking of an eagle pursuant to permit only if the eagle has seriously injured agricultural or other interests, provided it is consistent with federal law and no other alternative is appropriate. | Statute |
| Mitchell v. State | 118 So.3d 295 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2013) | 38 Fla. L. Weekly D1641, 2013 WL 3927676 |
The defendant in this case was convicted of animal cruelty for injuries his dog sustained after his dog bit him. Upon appeal, the court found that the prosecutor had erred by framing the argument in a manner that improperly shifted the burden of proof from whether the defendant had intentionally and maliciously inflicted injuries on the dog to whether the State's witnesses were lying. Since the court found this shift in burden was not harmless, the court reversed and remanded the defendant's conviction. |
Case |
| RI - Fur - Chapter 16. Fur-Bearing Animals | Gen.Laws 1956, § 20-16-1 to 18 | RI ST § 20-16-1 to 18 | These laws mandate how fur-bearing mammals may be hunted and trapped, and the issuance of trapping licenses. In order to set traps for fur-bearers, a person must have a trapping license from the department of environmental management. Steel jawed leghold traps are not allowed with some exceptions, A violation may result in a fine and/or imprisonment, and the revocation of the trapping license. | Statute |
| MT - Fur - Chapter 4. Commercial Activities. | MCA 87-4-1001 to 87-4-1014 | MT ST 87-4-1001 to 87-4-1014 | In Montana statutes, a person may not own or propagate furbearers unless the person holds a fur farm license. Each licensee must keep records as to the animals and purchasers involved. A fur farm license may be revoked for failure to operate the fur farm according to the provisions. | Statute |
| In Defense of Animals v. National Institutes of Health | 543 F.Supp.2d 70 (D.C.C., 2008) |
This FOIA case was brought against the National Institutes of Health ("NIH") by In Defense of Animals (“IDA”) seeking information related to approximately 260 chimpanzees located as the Alamogordo Primate Facility (“APF”) in New Mexico. Before the court now is NIH's Motion for Partial Reconsideration as to the release of records. This Court rejected NIH’s arguments that the records are not “agency records” because they belong to NIH's contractor, Charles River Laboratories, Inc. (“CRL”), a publicly held animal research company. Also, the Court was equally unconvinced that the information requested here is “essentially a blueprint of the APF facility,” and that release of such information presents a security risk to the facility. |
Case |