Results
| Title | Citation | Alternate Citation | Agency Citation | Summary | Type |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| U.S. v. CITGO Petroleum Corp. | 801 F.3d 477 (5th Cir. 2015) | 2015 WL 5201185 (5th Cir., 2015) | CITGO was convicted of multiple violations of the Clean Air Act and its regulations, and the Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918 (“MBTA”). CITGO urged the 5th Circuit to reverse the Clean Air Act convictions because the district court erroneously instructed the jury about the scope of a regulation concerning “oil-water separators.” CITGO also contended that the MBTA convictions were infirm because the district court misinterpreted the statute as covering unintentional bird kills. The 5th Circuit agreed with both contentions, holding that CITGO's equalization tanks and air floatation device were not oil-water separators under the Clean Air Act's regulations and that “taking” migratory birds involved only “conduct intentionally directed at birds, such as hunting and trapping, not commercial activity that unintentionally and indirectly caused migratory bird deaths. The district court’s decision was reversed and remanded with instructions. | Case | |
| ID - Pet Trusts - CHAPTER 7. TRUST ADMINISTRATION. | I.C. § 15-7-601 | ID ST § 15-7-601 | This Idaho statute represents Idaho's relevant pet trust law. The law, while not termed a pet trust, provides that a person may create a "purpose trust." This trust does not require a beneficiary and may instead just name a person to enforce the trust. | Statute | |
| Windridge Farm Pty Ltd v Grassi | [2010] NSWSC 335 |
The defendants entered the plaintiff's land, containing a piggery, with the intention of taking photographs and film footage to establish that the plaintiff failed to meet certain standards. The defendants' argument that the plaintiff was not entitled to injunctive relief because of 'unclean hands' was dismissed by the court. The court also found that the defensive argument based on 'implied freedom of political communication' did not have application in the circumstances. |
Case | ||
| Whitman v. State | 2008 WL 1962242 (Ark.App.,2008) |
Appellant was tried by a jury and found guilty of four counts of cruelty to animals concerning four Arabian horses. On appeal, appellant raised a sufficiency of the evidence challenge and a Rule 404(b) challenge to the admission of testimony and pictures concerning the condition of appellant's dogs and her house. The court found the photographic evidence was admissible for purposes other than to prove appellant's character, e.g., to show her knowledge of neglect of animals within her house, and thereby the absence of mistake or accident concerning the horses that lived outside. |
Case | ||
| State v. Branstetter | 29 P.3d 1121 (Or. 2001) | 332 Or. 389 (Or. 2001) |
In a state prosecution for animal neglect, the trial court ordered forfeiture of the animals to a humane agency. An appeal by the owner of the animals was dismissed by the Court of Appeals for lack of jurisdiction. The Oregon Supreme Court reversed the lower courts and held that the statutes controlling appealable judgments allowed the animal owner to appeal the forfeiture of the animals. |
Case | |
| IA - Restaurant - Inspection standards for food establishments. | Iowa Admin. Code 481-31.1(137F) | This Iowa regulation was amended in 2020 by adding subsection 31.1(14) to allow "pet dogs" on exterior premises of a food establishment, including outdoor patio and outdoor dining areas, provided the food establishment meets all of the listed requirements. These requirements include: having a separate outdoor entrance; not allowing food preparation in the outdoor area or storage of reusable customer utensils; mandating that food or water dishes provided to dogs are single-use and disposable or come from the pet owners themselves; prohibiting contact between employees and the dogs; making sure the outdoor area is kept clean; ensuring that the area is immediately cleaned and sanitized if body fluids are excreted; making sure the outdoor area is not fully enclosed; requiring the removal of disruptive pet dogs; and posting of rules at the entrance. These rules include the leashing of dogs at all times, the prohibiting of dogs in the interior of the food establishment and on furniture, and the requirement to notify employees if the dog deposits any body fluid. | Administrative | ||
| US - PPIA Regulations - Operating, Ante and Post Mortem Inspection | 9 C.F.R. 381 | The following Poultry Products Inspection Act regulations detail the provisions for operating a poultry slaughterhouse, and for ante and post mortem inspection. | Administrative | ||
| US - MBTA - Senate Bill 2547 An Act to Amend the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) | 2004 Senate Bill 2547 |
This Act, now known as the Migratory Bird Treaty Reform Act (MBTRA), revamps the MBTA by excluding species of birds that are "non-native" to the United States. Under the bill, a bird species shall not be treated as native to the United States if the species occurs in the United States solely as a result of intentional or unintentional human-assisted introduction after the date of adoption of the treaty in 1918. As a result, some 94 species of birds currently protected under the treaty would lose their protected status. |
Statute | ||
| United States v. Bengis | 2006 WL 3735654 (S.D. N.Y. 2006) |
Defendants were caught illegally over-fishing off the coast of South Africa and selling the fish in the United States, in violation of the Lacey Act. The United States Government could not seek compensation for South Africa under the Mandatory Victims Restitution Act because the fish were not property belonging to South Africa. However, the United States Government may be able to seek restitution for the South African Government under the discretionary Victim and Witness Protection Act. Opinion Vacated and Remanded by: U.S. v. Bengis, 631 F.3d 33 (2nd Cir., 2011). |
Case | ||
| Graham v. Notti | 196 P.3d 1070 (Wash.,2008) |
The court held that the adoption of a dog from an animal shelter was invalid unless the dog was found in "the city" pursuant to the shelter's contract with the local government. |
Case |