Results
| Title | Citation | Alternate Citation | Agency Citation | Summary | Type |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| U.S. v. Friday | 525 F.3d 938 (10th Cir., 2008) | 2008 WL 1971504 (C.A.10 (Wyo.)) |
The Defendant, a member of the Northern Arapaho Tribe of Wyoming, was charged with violating the Eagle Act after he illegally shot a bald eagle for an important religious ritual. The Defendant claimed that prosecution was prevented by the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA). Friday claimed that the government failed to protect eagles killed when they strike power lines. The Court of Appeals held that the permitting process did not facially violate the RFRA and any difference in government's treatment of Native Americans taking eagles for religious purposes and power companies whose power lines killed eagles did not indicate that government failed to protect eagles in least restrictive manner. |
Case | |
| Animal Law in Latin America |
Animal Law in Latin America |
Policy | |||
| Jay Hedge Grievance Statement to Augusta University | This document comprises Dr. Jay Hedge's Grievance Statement to Augusta University concerning the death of a laboratory monkey Named "Ovechkin" at Augusta University Augusta, Georgia. | Policy | |||
| US - Petitions - AWI Consolidated Petitions | Submitted by Animal Welfare Institute | The following is a list of petitions submitted by the Animal Welfare Institute (AWI) and other advocacy groups to United States agencies. These petitions seek changes to rule-making for various animal welfare issues and also seek designations under the federal Endangered Species Act. The provided links for each action give a summary and links to the actual filed petitions. The petitions are listed with the most recent one filed at the top of the page. | Administrative | ||
| Ramapo v. Hi-Tor Animal Care Center, Inc. | Judgment 10050423 (2010) | This court was asked to determine whether a dog shoul be declared dangerous pursuant to section 108 (24) (a) of the Agriculture and Markets Law. The case is unusual in one aspect as the respondent is an animal shelter and the alleged victim is an animal control officer from another township. The Justice Court found the shelter dog was not 'Dangerous' pursuant to Agriculture and Markets Law. Interestingly, the court found the reasonable person standard in the statute to be problematic and in need of legislative amendment restoring in appropriate language the consideration of evidence of vicious propensity. | Case | ||
| AK - Dogs - Title 3. Agriculture and Animals. Chapter 55. Dogs. | AS § 03.55.010 - 070, § 11.56.705 - 715; § 44.09.140 | AK ST § 03.55.010 - 070, § 11.56.705 - 715; § 44.09.140 | This collection reflects Alaska's dog laws. The primary dog laws give permission to kill dangerous dogs that are running at large or those that are chasing livestock. It also defines a dangerous dog - "Any dog which when unprovoked has ever bitten or attacked a human being is considered vicious . . ." Notably, "[a]ny person may lawfully kill any vicious or mad dog running at large." This section also allows a village council of an unincorporated village to destroy loose dogs in the village or otherwise control dogs to the extent authorized first class cities. Other laws concern the state dog and harming police dogs. | Statute | |
| Ronald Hane and Laurie Simerson, plaintiffs v. Maurice James and Mary James, defendants |
This is a copy of a Washington arbitration award that awarded general and special damages. |
Pleading | |||
| U.S. v. McDougall | 25 F.Supp.2d 85 (N.D.N.Y. 1998) |
Defendants Goodfriend and Benney, commercial fishermen licensed pursuant to the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation ("DEC"), are charged with catching and failing to return substantial quantities of eel and walleye from Lake Ontario and New York waters in violation of New York law that prohibits commerce in these fish because of health and conservation concerns. Aware of the ban prohibiting the sale of eel and walleye taken from these waters, Goodfriend and Benney subsequently sold the eel and walleye to a host of fish wholesalers and retailers, located within and outside New York. Defendant truck driver's alleged filing of false Canadian customs forms relating to eel and walleye he was transporting from the U.S. to his Canadian employer were violations of the Lacey Act, regardless of whether these acts violated Canadian law. |
Case | ||
| Dreyer v. Cyriacks | 112 Cal.App. 279 (1931) | 297 P. 35 (1931) | Plaintiffs brought action against Defendant for damages after Defendant shot and killed Plaintiffs’ dog. The Trial Court set aside a jury verdict granting Plaintiffs $100,000 in actual and $25,000 in punitive damages, on the ground that the verdict was excessive. On appeal, the District Court of Appeal, First District, Division 1, California, affirmed the Trial Court decision, finding that the Trial Court was justified in holding that both the actual and punitive damages awards were grossly excessive, given the circumstances under which the incident occurred. In making its decision, the Court of Appeal pointed out that, although this particular dog had been in the motion picture industry, dogs are nonetheless considered property, and as such, are to be ascertained in the same manner as other property, and not in the same manner as human life. | Case | |
| IN - Cattle Slaughter - SIKKIM PREVENTION OF COW SLAUGHTER ACT, 2017 | 17 of 2017 | This law, specific to the North Eastern state of Sikkim, prohibits the slaughter of cows and their female progeny. 'Cows' under this Act refer to milking cows, dry cows, heifers and calves. Cows may not be slaughtered unless a certificate in writing is obtained from the Competent Authority. Persons slaughtering cows without obtaining a certificate shall be imprisoned and fined. | Statute |
