Results
| Title | Citation | Alternate Citation | Summary | Type |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| U.S. v. 3,210 crusted sides of Caiman crocodilus yacare | 636 F.Supp. 1281 (S.D. Fla. 1986) |
The plaintiff, the United States of America, seeks forfeiture of the defendant, 10,870 crusted sides of Caiman crocodilus yacare, an endangered species of wildlife (hides) transported from Bolivia to the U.S. in violation of the Lacey Act, among other statutes. The court found that the testimony concerning the shrinkage of the crocodile hides during tanning did not meet the buren of the claimed owners showing by a preponderance of the evidence that the hides, which were shipped from Bolivia under the size limit imposed by Bolivian law, were not subject to the forfeiture provisions of the Lacey Act, 16 U.S.C. § 3374(a)(1) (1985). The provision of the Lacey Act at issue prohibits the interstate or foreign commerce of any wildlife taken in violation of any foreign law. |
Case | |
| U.S. v. Fullmer | 584 F.3d 132 (C.A.3 (N.J.), 2009) | 2009 WL 3273955 (C.A.3 (N.J.)) |
In an issue of first impression, this Court considered whether the Animal Enterprise Protection Act (AEPA) was unconstitutional either on its face or as-applied to defendants. The defendants in this case were an animal rights organization ("SHAC") and six associated individuals. The defendants engaged in direct action ranging from electronic civil disobedience to destroying property at the homes of individuals associated with Huntingdon Life Sciences (a research corporation that performs animal testing for other companies). Defendants argued that the statute has a chilling effect on speech because protestors will refrain from all speech, even protected speech, due to the ambiguity of what the statute proscribes. Thus the Court found that the government provided sufficient evidence to prove that the defendants conspired to violate the AEPA. |
Case |
| Ecuador - Environmental - Decreto Ejecutivo 752 | Regulations to the Code of the Environment | Decreto 752 regulates the environment code. It comprises seven books that regulate each of the books in the Environmental Code regulating topics such as natural heritage, environmental quality, climate change, the coastal marine zone, environmental incentives, etc. These books contain chapters, sections, and provisions concerning wildlife, urban fauna, protected areas, production, and sustainable use, etc. This regulation establishes that all wildlife species are protected by the government, and gives special priority to native, endemic, threatened, and migratory species. It prohibits the commercial trade of wildlife from being used as pets without authorization; the commercial trade of native, endemic, threatened, and migratory wildlife species directly taken from their natural habitat; and other prohibitions that the environmental authority may establish. This executive decree also regulates the application of The Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES) in Chapter V, articles 106-121. | Statute | |
| Olier v. Bailey | 164 So. 3d 982 (Miss. 2015) | 2015 WL 1611772 (Miss. 2015) | Plaintiff was attacked and chased by a domestic goose in Defendant’s yard. As Plaintiff attempted to flee, she fell and broke her arm. Plaintiff sued Defendant in the County Court of Jackson County under a theory of premises liability and, alternatively, under the dangerous-propensity rule. The trial court granted summary judgment because it found that Plaintiff was a licensee on Defendant's property and that Defendant did not breach her duty of care toward Plaintiff. It also denied relief under the dangerous-propensity rule because there was no evidence that the particular goose that bit Plaintiff ever had exhibited dangerous propensities prior to the incident. Plaintiff appealed to the Jackson County Circuit Court, which affirmed. Plaintiff then filed the instant appeal. The Supreme Court of Mississippi held that, while Plaintiff cannot, as a matter of law, pursue her claim under her theory of general premises liability, she can proceed under the dangerous-propensity theory because the court found an issue of fact regarding whether Defendant was on notice of her geese's alleged dangerous propensity. Accordingly, the Supreme Court affirmed the trial court judgment in part, reversed it in part, and remanded for further proceedings. | Case |
| US - Housing - Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 | 29 USC 794 | In the context of housing discrimination, this statute creates the rule that public housing authorities cannot deny housing to a disabled person solely because of his or her disability, and that if a reasonable accommodation can be made to make housing available to a disabled person, the landlord is required to make the accommodation. To establish a prima facie case of housing discrimination, the tenant must establish four elements: (1) tenant is an individual with a disability; (2) tenant is "otherwise qualified" to receive the benefit; (3) tenant was denied the benefit of the program solely by reason of his or her disability; and (4) the program receives federal financial assistance. | Statute | |
| AR - Primates - Subchapter 6. Nonhuman Primates | A.C.A. § 20-19-601 - 610 | AR ST § 20-19-601 - 610 | This 2013 Act prohibits the importing, possession, selling, or breeding of apes, baboons, and macques. It is unlawful under the act for a person to allow a member of the public to come into direct contact with a primate. Further, a person cannot tether a primate outdoors or allow a primate to run at-large. The section does not apply to accredited AZA institutions, AWA regulated research facilities, wildlife sanctuaries, temporary holding facilities, licensed veterinarians providing treatment, law enforcement officers, circuses holding AWA Class C licenses as provided, and those temporarily in the state. The act has a grandfathering provision that allows a person at least 18 years of age to continue to possess the restricted primate if within 180 days after the effective date of the act the person registers the animal per § 20-19-605 and follows other listed requirements. | Statute |
| United States v. Daniels | 377 F.2d 255 (6th Cir. 1967) |
Defendant sought review of a decision from a United States district court, which during a second trial convicted defendant of armed robbery. Armed with a gun defendant went to the teller's window and handed the teller a cloth bag with a note saying that it was a holdup. Two photographs were admitted into evidence that showed agents in the relative positions of defendant and the savings and loan employees at the time of the robbery. The court found no prejudicial effect in the admission of the photographs especially in light of the positive identification of defendant by the teller in the courtroom. |
Case | |
| Mogensen v. Welch | --- F.Supp.3d ----, 2023 WL 8756708 (W.D. Va. Dec. 19, 2023) | 2023 WL 8756708 (W.D.Va., 2023) | Plaintiffs owned and operated a zoo containing about 95 animals. Following complaints about suspected abuse and neglect of these animals, defendant executed a search warrant of the zoo. The search led to the seizure of many of these animals, including a tiger in such poor health that it needed to be euthanized. Following the seizure of these animals, plaintiffs filed a motion to argue that their due process rights were violated because a civil forfeiture hearing must be held no more than ten business days after the state seized the animals, and plaintiffs argue that ten days is too little time to prepare for the hearing. To succeed on the claim, plaintiffs must show that they are likely to suffer irreparable harm in the absence of preliminary relief, which they were unable to do because plaintiffs still have the right to appeal if the hearing does not go in their favor. Therefore, the court denied plaintiff's motion for a preliminary injunction. | Case |
| State v. DeFrancesco | 668 A.2d 348 (Conn. 1995) | 235 Conn. 426(1995) |
After the USDA went to the defendant’s house to perform a prelicense inspection for an Animal Welfare Act permit for a rabbit, the USDA discovered the defendant also kept a Bengal cat, a Jungle cat and a Bobcat on the premises; the USDA then notified the Connecticut Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) about the three cats. After the defendant’s attempt to sell the three cats, the DEP confiscated them and placed them in the care of an expert; the DEP also charged the defendant with three misdemeanor violations of General Statutes section 26-40a. After trial and appellate court determinations, the Connecticut Supreme Court found the three cats to be included on the list of prohibited felidae in General Statutes section 26-40a and found General Statutes section 26-40a did not violate Due Process. |
Case |
| CA - Animal Control - Chapter 4. Animal Control | West's Ann.Cal.Health & Safety Code §§ 121875 - 121945 | CA HLTH & S §§ 121875 - 121945 | Beyond being domestic pets, dogs provide many services to humans, such as tracking scents and guarding facilities. Below is a collection of California laws, collectively known as the Dog Act, that set out definitions, requirements, and penalties relating to guard dogs, tracking dogs, narcotics dogs, sentry dogs and the people who handle them. | Statute |