Results
| Title | Citation | Alternate Citation | Agency Citation | Summary | Type |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Reichley v. Pennsylvania Dept. of Agriculture | 427 F.3d 236 (Pa. 2005) |
Poultry Producers brought claims against the Pennsylvania Department of Agriculture for deprivation of their property without adequate due process in response to an outbreak of avian influenza. The United States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania, granted defendants' motion for summary judgment and the Court of Appeals affirmed, reasoning there was no due process deprivation by failing to issue notice and an opportunity for a hearing before the quarantine and depopulation of the producers' flocks. |
Case | ||
| Rupert v. Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service | 957 F.2d 32 (1st Cir. 1992) |
Appellant was the pastor of an all-race Native American church that required the use of eagle feathers during certain worship who challenged the BGEPA after being denied a permit to obtain eagle feathers because he was not a member of a recognized Indian tribe. Under an equal protection analysis, the court found the limitation on the use of eagle parts to Native Americans is rationally related to the government's interest in preserving the eagle population as well as the special religious and cultural interests of Native Americans. For further discussion on religious challenges to the BGEPA by non-Native Americans, see Detailed Discussion of Eagle Act. |
Case | ||
| Robinson v. U.S. | 718 F.2d 336 (10th Cir. 1983) |
Richard "Dick" Robinson was charged by the Department of Agriculture with violating the Animal Welfare Act for transporting a wolf from Utah to California for exhibition on television without a license. Robinson exhibited the wolf on several television programs to promote his most recent book about his exploits as an animal trainer and producer of animal films. Respondent once held a valid exhibitor's license under the AWA, but the license was revoked in 1979 when Robinson failed to comply with the terms of a consent decision requiring him to install more adequate plywood cover for his bear cages. After a hearing, the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) for the Department of Agriculture issued a cease and desist order to prevent Robinson from further illegally transporting and exhibiting his animals and assessed a $500 civil penalty against him. The Judicial Officer of the Department of Agriculture affirmed the order of the ALJ on appeal. The 10th Circuit affirmed the ALJ's conclusion that a cease and desist order by itself was insufficient and that a $500 penalty was necessary to impress Robinson with the need to comply with the Act's requirements in the future. |
Case | ||
| NV - Lien - 108.540. Lien upon animals; priority; demand for payment; foreclosure; penalty for taking or driving away animal | N.R.S. 108.540 | Any person furnishing feed, pasture or otherwise boarding any animal(s), at the request or with the consent of the owner, has a lien upon the animal(s), and may retain possession thereof until the sum due for the feed, pasture or board has been paid. Before foreclosing the lien by sale, the person furnishing the feed, pasture or board shall mail a registered or certified letter to the owner of the animal(s), at the owner's last known address, demanding payment. Any person who takes and drives away any such animal(s), while in the possession of the person feeding, pasturing or boarding them, without the consent of that person, and without first having paid all reasonable charges due thereon, is guilty of a misdemeanor. | Statute | ||
| PA - Disaster - State Emergency Managment Plan | Emergency Support Function #11 - Agriculture and Natural Resources Annex (2019) | The Pennsylvania Emergency Management Agency (PEMA) is the agency in charge of emergency response in the state. The issue of animals in disaster are dealt with in Emergency Support Function #11 - Agriculture and Natural Resources Annex (2021). | Administrative | ||
| MI - Dogs - Consolidated Dog Laws | M.C.L. 287.261 - 395; 317.63; 324.73101 - 73110; 324.42101 - 42106 | MI ST 287.261 - 395; 317.63; 324.73101 - 73110; 324.42101 - 42106 | The regulation of dogs and cats in Michigan implicates three major issues: licensing and registration of dogs; the regulation of animal control facilities and pet shops; and the ever-present concern of dog bites. The primary statutory vehicle that regulates the licensing requirements for dogs is the The Dog Law of 1919. Under the dog law, it is unlawful for any person to own a dog six months or older unless the dog is licensed. MCL Sec. 287.262. It is also unlawful for a person to own a dog six months or older that does not wear a collar and tag at all times, except when engaged in hunting activities accompanied by his or her owner. MCL Sec. 287.262. A female dog that is in heat may not go beyond her owner's premises unless properly held on a leash under this section. | Statute | |
| US - Marine Mammals, Endangered - Establishment of Species of Concern List, Addition of Species to Species of Concern List, Desc | 2004 WL 791908 (F.R.) | FR Doc. 04-8593 |
NMFS establishes a species of concern list, places 45 species on this list, describes the factors it will consider when identifying species of concern, and revises the candidate species list. NMFS also solicits information and comments concerning the status of, research and stewardship opportunities for, and the factors for identifying species of concern. |
Administrative | |
| Kinara v. Jamaica Bay Riding Academy, Inc. | 783 N.Y.S.2d 636 (N.Y., 2004) | 2004 N.Y. Slip Op. 07464 |
Plaintiff was kicked by a horse ridden by her friend while trail riding. Plaintiff sued the Defendant who owned the horse and trail Plaintiff was riding on. The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of the Defendant and the Court of Appeals affirmed the decision holding Plaintiff assumed the risk. |
Case | |
| United States v. 144,774 Pounds Of Blue King Crab | 410 F.3d 1131 (9th Cir. Wash., 2005) | 2005 WL 1355511 (9th Cir. Wash.) |
An importer of 144,774 pounds of cooked, frozen blue king crab was charged with violating the Lacey Act for taking the crab in violation of Russian fishing regulations. The crab is subject to forfeiture under the Lacey Act on a strict liability basis, but the importer asserted an "innocent owner" defense. The trial court denied the owner's defense and the Court of Appeals affirmed, reasoning if the crab was illegally taken under Russian law then it is considered contraband for Lacey Act purposes regardless of its status under U.S. law. |
Case | |
| OK - Disaster - Care and Disposition of Disaster Animals Act | 4 Okl. St. Ann. § 701 - 707 | These statutes compose the Care and Disposition of Disaster Animals Act of Oklahoma. The Act describes where animals who are rescued from a disaster area should be held, how long the animals should be held for their owners, and also restricts disaster animals from being removed from the state. The statute also describes the penalties for knowingly removing disaster animals from the state including a civil fine of up to One Thousand Dollars ($1,000.00) per offense. | Statute |