Results
| Title | Citation | Alternate Citation | Summary | Type |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Palila v. Hawaii Dept. of Land and Natural Resources | Not Reported in F.Supp.2d, 2013 WL 1442485 (D.Hawai'i) |
Fearing potential prosecution under a county ordinance and a state statute for carrying out a Stipulated Order that protects an endangered species (the Palila), defendants, joined substantially by the plaintiffs, sought a motion for declaratory and injunctive relief. The district court granted the defendants’ motion because federal law, the Stipulated Order, preempted both state and county law. The court therefore stated that so long as defendants, or their duly-appointed agents, were acting to enforce the specific terms of the Stipulated Order, they may conduct an aerial sighting over the Palila's critical habitat and shoot any ungulates sighted in that area without fear of violating (1) Hawaii County Code §§ 14–111, –112, & 1–10(a); or (2) HRS § 263–10. |
Case | |
| 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 |
| NY - Breed - § 3421. Homeowners' liability insurance; dogs | McKinney's Insurance Law § 3421 | NY INS § 3421 | This New York law provides that, with respect to homeowners' insurance policies, no insurer shall refuse to issue or renew, cancel, or charge or impose an increased premium or rate for such policy or contract based solely upon harboring or owning any dog of a specific breed or mixture of breeds. This law does not prohibit an insurer from refusing to issue or cancel such insurance where a dog of any breed or mixed breeds has been declared a dangerous dog. | Statute |
| Animals and the Law |
|
Policy | ||
| LA - Cruelty - § 89. Crime against nature | LSA-R.S. 14:89 | This Louisiana law makes it a crime against nature to engage in "unnatural carnal copulation by a human being with another of the same sex or opposite sex or with an animal." This results in a penalty of a fine of not more than two thousand dollars, and imprisonment, with or without hard labor, for not more than five years, or both. In 2018, the legislature added a new section dedicated to sexual abuse of animals. | Statute | |
| CA - Cruelty - § 597.4. Selling or giving away live animals on any street, highway, | West's Ann. Cal. Penal Code § 597.4 | CA PENAL § 597.4 | This California statute makes is unlawful (with exceptions) to sell or give away, as part of a commercial transaction, a live animal on any street, highway, public right-of-way, parking lot, carnival, or boardwalk. The first violation is an infraction punishable by a fine up to $250. However, if the animal suffers, is injured, or its life or health is endangered, then the person is guilty of a misdemeanor. | Statute |
| AU - Wildlife - Wildlife Act 1975 (VIC) | Wildlife Act 1975 |
The purposes of this Act are to establish procedures in order to promote: the protection and conservation of wildlife; the prevention of taxa of wildlife from becoming extinct; the sustainable use of and access to wildlife; and to prohibit and regulate the conduct of persons engaged in activities concerning or related to wildlife |
Statute | |
| In re: PATRICK D. HOCTOR | 54 Agric. Dec. 114 (1995) | 1995 WL 321500 (U.S.D.A.) |
Sanction in each case is to be determined by examining nature of violations in relation to remedial purposes of regulatory statute involved, along with all relevant circumstances, giving appropriate weight to recommendations of administrative officials having responsibility for achieving congressional purpose. |
Case |
| U.S. v. Friday | 525 F.3d 938 (10th Cir., 2008) | 2008 WL 1971504 (C.A.10 (Wyo.)) |
The Defendant, a member of the Northern Arapaho Tribe of Wyoming, was charged with violating the Eagle Act after he illegally shot a bald eagle for an important religious ritual. The Defendant claimed that prosecution was prevented by the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA). Friday claimed that the government failed to protect eagles killed when they strike power lines. The Court of Appeals held that the permitting process did not facially violate the RFRA and any difference in government's treatment of Native Americans taking eagles for religious purposes and power companies whose power lines killed eagles did not indicate that government failed to protect eagles in least restrictive manner. |
Case |
| Animal Law in Latin America |
Animal Law in Latin America |
Policy |
