Results
| Title | Citation | Alternate Citation | Agency Citation | Summary | Type |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Alliance for the Wild Rockies v. Salazar | 672 F.3d 1170 (9th Cir. 2012) | 2012 WL 834096 (9th Cir. 2012) | Environmental organizations challenged constitutionality of Section 1713 of the 2011 Appropriations Act ordering Secretary of Interior to reissue a final rule removing a distinct gray wolf population in the northern Rocky Mountains from protections of Endangered Species Act (ESA). The Court of Appeals held that the statute did not violate the separation of powers doctrine, and reasoned that Congress amended, rather than repealed, ESA as to delisting of gray wolf by directing Secretary to reissue rule without regard to any other statute or regulation. | Case | |
| Animal & Natural Resource Law Review Volume XIX |
Published by the students of Michigan State University College of LawAnimal & Natural Resource Law ReviewVol. |
Policy | |||
| AR - Hunting, remote - 002.00.1-05.08. Prohibited Methods for Hunting Wildlife | AR ADC 002.00.1-05.08 | Ark. Admin. Code 002.00.1-05.08 | This Arkansas regulation prohibits computer-assisted hunting, among other activities. | Administrative | |
| Policing Wildlife |
|
Policy | |||
| Research/Animal Testing | Policy | ||||
| CA - Fighting - § 598.1. Dogfighting; forfeiture proceedings | West's Ann. Cal. Penal Code § 598.1 | CA PENAL § 598.1 | This California law allows the prosecuting attorney to file a petition for forfeiture in animal fighting cases under Section 597.5 or subdivision (b) of Section 597b. Any property interest, whether tangible or intangible, that was acquired through the commission of any of the crimes listed in subdivision (a) of Section 597.5 or subdivision (b) of Section 597b shall be subject to forfeiture, including both personal and real property, profits, proceeds, and the instrumentalities acquired, accumulated, or used by cockfighting or dogfighting participants, organizers, transporters of animals and equipment, breeders and trainers of fighting birds or fighting dogs, and persons who steal or illegally obtain dogs or other animals for fighting, including bait and sparring animals. | Statute | |
| AU - Wildlife - Territory Parks and Wildlife Conservation Act 1977 (NT) | Territory Parks and Wildlife Conservation Act 1977 |
An Act to make provision for and in relation to the establishment of Territory Parks and other Parks and Reserves and the study, protection, conservation and sustainable utilisation of wildlife. |
Statute | ||
| U.S. v. Hale | 545 U.S. 1112 (2005) | 125 S.Ct. 2914 (2005) |
This opinion vacates and remands U.S. v. Hale, 2004 WL 2367994. |
Case | |
| In Defense of Animals v. National Institutes of Health | 527 F.Supp.2d 23 (D.D.C., 2007) | 2007 WL 4329474 (D.D.C.) |
This FOIA case was brought against the National Institutes of Health ("NIH") by In Defense of Animals (“IDA”) seeking information related to approximately 260 chimpanzees located as the Alamogordo Primate Facility (“APF”) in New Mexico. Before the court now is NIH's Motion for Partial Reconsideration as to the release of records. This Court rejected NIH’s arguments that the records are not “agency records” because they belong to NIH's contractor, Charles River Laboratories, Inc. (“CRL”), a publicly held animal research company. Also, the Court was equally unconvinced that the information requested here is “essentially a blueprint of the APF facility,” and that release of such information presents a security risk to the facility. This Order was Superseded by In Defense of Animals v. National Institutes of Health , 543 F.Supp.2d 70 (D.D.C., 2008). |
Case | |
| AUTO 1928 de 2022 | AUTO 1928 de 2022 | In Colombia, municipalities are not allowed to prohibit bullfighting. It is a power reserved for Congress. Bogota attempted to regulate the practice through ordinance 767 in 2020. Since the city was not allowed to prohibit bullfights, it regulated them by prohibiting the use of sharp objects and killing of the bulls in the ring. In addition, they required that 30% of the publicity of the event be focused on educating the public on the suffering of bulls. It imposed a 20% tax and decreased the number of annual bullfights allowed from 8 to 4. During this time, no bids were sent to use "Plaza Santamaria" (Bogota's bullfighting stadium) because owners and sponsors of this practice did not agree with such requirements. Thus, Plaza Santamaria did not hold any bullfights since 2020. In December 2022, the Constitutional Court ordered the city to refrain from taking any action conducing to the violation of decision T-296 of 2013 and ordered the opening of Plaza Santamaria “to allow bullfights to take place in the usual conditions as an expression of cultural diversity and social pluralism,” effectively ordering the city to do what’s necessary for the comeback of bullfighting to the capital. | Case |
