Results
| Title | Citation | Alternate Citation | Agency Citation | Summary | Type |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cascadia Wildlands v. Dep't of Fish and Wildlife | 455 P.3d 950 (Or.App., 2019) | 300 Or.App. 648 (Or.App., 2019) | Oregon Fish and Wildlife Commission ("Respondent") removed the species Canis lupus (gray wolf) from the list of species protected under the Oregon Endangered Species Act (OESA). Cascadia Wildlands, Center for Biological Diversity, and Oregon Wild ("Petitioners") sought judicial review of the amendment to Oregon law. The Petitioners contended that the decision to delist exceeded the commission’s statutory authority and did not comply with applicable rulemaking procedures. After the Petitioners filed their petition, the Oregon legislature passed House Bill 4040 which ratified the administrative rule that the Respondent promulgated delisting the gray wolf. The Respondents argued that the passage of the bill made the Petitioners' petition for judicial review moot. The Petitioners argued that the Oregon law ratifying the administrative rule had no legal effect and was merely an expression of legislative agreement. The Court held that the legislature using the word “ratify” in the statute indicated that they intended to confirm that the Commission’s rule delisting the gray wolf was legally satisfied, therefore, rendering judicial review moot. The Petitioners also contended that the statute violated the separation of powers because the statute performed an entirely judicial function by neither appealing nor amending the statute. Petitioners asserted that evaluating whether a particular agency satisfied requirements of law is a fact-specific inquiry which is reserved for the court. The Court held that the statute did not violate the separation of powers. The Court ultimately held that the Petitioners' rule challenge was moot. The petition for judicial review was ultimately dismissed. | Case | |
| RI - Shark - § 20-1-29. Trade in shark fins | Gen.Laws 1956, § 20-1-29 | RI ST § 20-1-29 | This Rhode Island law, effective in 2017, prohibits the possession, sale, offering for sale, trading, or distribution of shark fin. “Shark fin” means the raw, dried, or otherwise processed detached fin or the raw, dried, or otherwise processed detached tail of a shark. Even if a person holds a license to take sharks, he or she must immediately destroy any shark fin separated from the shark unless used by the person for the purposes of taxidermy and subsequent display. Violation incurs a fine or not less than $500 nor more than $1,000 imprisonment of up to 90 days, or both. | Statute | |
| U.S. v. Clucas | 50 F.Supp. 609 (D.C. Va. 1943) |
Defendant and several individuals went on a duck hunt in and were charged with exceeding the limit for migratory birds under Virginia law. The game wardens testified that the defendant, Clucas, admitted in the presence of the other parties that they had killed more than the 'bag', meaning thereby that they had killed more than ten ducks allowed for each person. The government held the position that the other individuals were hired for the reason of taking or killing the ducks. The court held that in view of the fact that January 6, 1943, was not the first day of the season the possession of twenty-six ducks by the two defendants did not constitute a violation of the provisions of the Virginia regulation. The possession being legal, the burden of proof did not shift to the defendants. |
Case | ||
| OR - Rehabilitation, wildlife - Chapter 635. Department of Fish and Wildlife. | OR ADC 635-044-0200 - 635-044-0310 | OAR 635-044-0200 - 635-044-0310 (repealed 2015) | [Note: repealed 2015] Under this set of Oregon regulations, any person desiring to hold any bird, mammal, amphibian or reptile for the purpose of wildlife rehabilitation must first obtain a Wildlife Rehabilitation Permit from the Department of Fish and Wildlife. The requirements and conditions to obtain a permit is also provided. In addition to an Oregon Wildlife Rehabilitation Permit, persons possessing this permit must also obtain a federal permit for species protected by federal law and provide a copy of the current valid federal permit to the Department. Other sections provide prohibited species under the permit and facility requirements. | Administrative | |
| State ex rel Del Monto v. Woodmansee | State ex rel Del Monto v. Woodmansee, 72 N.E.2d 789 (Ohio 1946). |
In an action in mandamus, relator property owner sought a writ ordering respondent building commissioner of the City of Euclid to issue a building permit for the construction of a store building. The store building would be used for the slaughter of chicken. The state tired to oppose the building by stating the use would be against Ohio's cruelty to animal statute. The Court ruled that the term "animals" as thus used meant a quadruped, not a bird or fowl. Thus, the court ruled in favor of the property owner in his mandamus action against the commissioner. |
Case | ||
| IN - Breeders - Rule 1. Commercial Dog Breeder and Broker Registration | Ind. Admin. Code tit. 345, r. 14-1-1 to 4 | 345 IAC 13-1-1 to 4 | This set of Indiana rules provides the rules for licensing and registration of commercial dog brokers and breeders. | Administrative | |
| CA - Horse slaughter - § 597o. Humane transportation of equine to slaughter; vehicle requirements; | West's Ann. Cal. Penal Code § 597o | CA PENAL § 597o | This statute outlines the requirements for transporting equine to slaughter, including, but limited to, proper ventilation, sufficient space for equine to stand, and the use of ramps and floors with nonskid surfaces. | Statute | |
| Coy v. Ohio Veterinary Med. Licensing Bd. | 2005 Ohio App. LEXIS 756 | 2005 Ohio 773 |
A veterinarian's license was revoked by the Ohio Veterinarian Medical Licensing Board and the vet challenged the revocation of his license. The trial court found the vet guilty of gross incompetence and he appealed claiming there was no definition of gross incompetence in the statute. The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court holding no specific definition was required. |
Case | |
| NM - Dog Bite - Chapter 77. Animals and Livestock. | N. M. S. A. 1978, § 77-1-6 | NM ST § 77-1-6 | This short New Mexico statute provides that state health department shall prescribe regulations for the reporting of animal bites, confinement and disposition of rabies-suspect animals, rabies quarantine and the disposition of dogs and cats exposed to rabies, in the interest of public health and safety. | Statute | |
| ME - Equine Liability - Chapter 743. Equine Activities | 7 M. R. S. A. § 4101 - 4104-A | ME ST T. 7 § 4101 - 4104-A | This act stipulates that an equine sponsor, equine professional, or any other person engaged in an equine activity, is immune from liability for the death or injury of a participant, as well as property damage, which resulted from the inherent risks of equine activities. However, there are exceptions to this rule: a person will be held liable for injuries of an equine activity participant if he or she displays a willful and wanton or intentional disregard for the safety of the participant and if he or she fails to make reasonable and prudent efforts in ensuring the safety of the participant. In addition, a person will also be held liable for the injury of an equine activity participant if he or she is injured on the land or at a facility due to a dangerous latent condition of which was known to the equine sponsor, professional or other person. | Statute |