Results

Displaying 21 - 30 of 6638
Title Citation Alternate Citation Agency Citation Summary Type
CA - Burro - § 4600. Killing or capturing undomesticated burro; prima facie evidence West's Ann. Cal. Fish & G. Code § 4600 CA FISH & G § 4600 This section makes it unlawful to kill, wound, capture, or have in possession any undomesticated burro. An undomesticated burro is a wild burro or a burro which has not been tamed or domesticated for a period of three years after its capture. Statute
Marine Mammal Conservancy, Inc. v. Department of Agr. 134 F.3d 409 (D.C. Cir. 1998) 328 U.S.App.D.C. 253, 28 Envtl. L. Rep. 20,538

A nonprofit organization petitioned for review of the order of administrative law judge (ALJ) which denied organization's motion to intervene in administrative proceedings under Animal Welfare Act. The Court of Appeals held that the organization's failure to appeal administrative denial to judicial officer precluded judicial review of ALJ's actions.

Case
NY - Horse Racing - Section 4002.21. License requirements for assistant trainer 9 NY ADC 4002.21 9 NYCRR 4002.21 An assistant trainer's license may be issued to a person who is 18 years old, has three years of experience, is vouched for by the trainer by whom he or she is to be employed, and passes a written exam (or oral) and a practical exam. Administrative
Case Sea Cucumbers in Galapagos - Ecuador- Do not publish yet Proceso No. 20331-2015-00232 Case
ROL:293-15 “La arrastrada de Freirina” RIT No. 323-2014 This is the case of a pregnant dog dragged by a truck. The defendants also assaulted and threatened two people that witnessed the event and attempted to stop it. The court found the three defendants guilty of animal cruelty and sentenced them to 61 days in jail and a fine of 2 UTM for these charges. Additional jail time and penalties were given on the charges of assault, threatening, and damage to property. Case
Britton v. Bruin Not Reported in P.3d, 2016 WL 1019213 (N.M. Ct. App., 2016) 2016 WL 1019213 (N.M. Ct. App. Feb. 22, 2016) In this case, plaintiff appealed a decision by the district court denying her petition for a writ of mandamus. Plaintiff petitioned the court for a writ of mandamus to stop the City of Albuquerque's effort to control a large population of feral cats in its metropolitan area by “trapping, neutering them, and then returning them” to the location at which they were found. The district court denied the petition for a writ of mandamus because the court held that there was “a plain, speedy and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of the law.” Also, the court held that because the city’s program did not result in any unconstitutional action, the writ of mandamus was not appropriate. The court affirmed the district court’s ruling, looking only at whether or not there was “a plain, speedy and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of the law.” The court did not address the issue of whether or not the city’s population control effort was appropriate and should continue. The district court's order denying Petitioner's application for a writ of mandamus is affirmed. Case
DE - Property - § 3050F. Dogs deemed personal property; theft; penalty 16 Del.C. § 3050F DE ST TI 16 § 3050F Dogs are considered personal property in Delaware. Statute
FL - Importation - Chapter 5C-3. Importation of Animals Fla. Admin. Code r. 5C-3.001 - 3.015 Rule 5C-3.001 to 3.015, F.A.C. This set of regulations constitutes the Department of Agriculture & Consumer Services rules governing the importation of animals. Administrative
Milke v. Ratcliff Animal Hospital, Inc. 120 So.3d 343 (La.App. 2 Cir., 2013) 48,130 (La. App. 2 Cir. 7/10/13) This is an action for veterinary malpractice brought against a veterinarian and veterinary clinic, as well as an action for improper delay and bad faith dealing against the insurer of the veterinary clinic. Plaintiff brought this case after their 6-month old puppy died in the post-operative period following neutering surgery. Defendant veterinarian and clinic could not provide an exact cause of death, and the malpractice insurer that plaintiff was referred to denied plaintiff's malpractice claim. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of defendants, and plaintiff appealed. On appeal, the court found that the veterinarian and clinic did not commit malpractice and the insurer did not act in bad faith, and affirmed the judgment of the lower court. Case
U.S. v. Moon Lake Electric Ass'n, Inc. 45 F.Supp.2d 1070 (D. Colo. 1999)

Defendant on appeal contends that its conduct of electrocuting migratory birds does not fall within the ambit of either the MBTA or the BGEPA because each statute is directed at the more traditional "physical" takings of migratory birds through hunting and poaching.  The court disagrees, finding the plain language of the statute and legislative history demonstrate an intent to include electrocutions.  The court further delineates the differences in intent under each statute, finding that while the MBTA is a strict liability crime, the BGEPA is not.  For further discussion on the intersection of the MBTA and the BGEPA, see Detailed Discussion of Eagle Act.

Case

Pages