Results
| Title | Citation | Alternate Citation | Agency Citation | Summary | Type |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Access Now, Inc. v. Town of Jasper, Tennessee | 268 F.Supp.2d 973, 26 NDLR P 107 (E.D.Tenn.,2003) | Plaintiffs Access Now, Inc. and Pamela Kitchens, acting as parent and legal guardian on behalf of her minor daughter Tiffany brought this action for declaratory judgment and injunctive relief against defendant Town of Jasper, Tennessee under the ADA after the town denied her request to keep a keep miniature horse as service animal at her residence. The town's ordinance at issue provided that no person shall keep an enumerated animal within 1000 feet of any residence without a permit from the health officer. The Jasper Municipal Court held a hearing and determined that the keeping of the horse was in violation of the code and ordered it removed from the property. On appeal, this Court found that while the plaintiffs contended that the horse helped Tiffany in standing, walking, and maintaining her balance, Tiffany does not have a disability as defined by the ADA and does not have a genuine need to use the horse as a service animal. Further, the Court found that the horse was not a service animal within the meaning of 28 C.F.R. § 36.104 because the animal was not used in the capacity of a service animal and instead was a companion or pet to Tiffany. The plaintiffs' complaint was dismissed with prejudice. | Case | ||
| IA - Disaster planning - Iowa Emergency Response Plan | The Iowa Emergency Response Plan contains several specific references to pets and service animals. In fact, "[p]rovisions will be made for the care of pets in nearby locations. Service animals for persons with disabilities are allowed by law to stay in shelter with their owner and are not considered pets." There are requirements under the plan for agency coordination to shelter pets. | Administrative | |||
| MI - Leash - 287.262. Licensing and control of dogs; hunting dogs; female dogs in heat; straying dogs | M. C. L. A. 287.262 | MI ST 287.262 | This section of the Dog Law of 1919 provides that any dog over six months must be registered and wear a collar at all times. It also mandates that female dogs in heat must be kept on their owners' premises or restrained on a leash. The overall leash requirement is less clear, stating that it is unlawful for an owner to allow a dog "to stray unless held properly in leash." This does appear to mandate a statewide leash requirement for dogs. | Statute | |
| WV - Disaster planning - Emergency Support Function 11 | Emergency Support Function 11 | This excerpt of West Virginia's Emergency Operations Plan contains Emergency Support Function 11, Agriculture and Natural Resources. Within ESF 11, there is a brief mention of household pets. | Administrative | ||
| U.S. v. Bengis | 631 F.3d 33 (2nd Cir. 2011) |
After two applications to seek compensation for South Africa were denied, the United States appealed the two orders and the 2nd Circuit held that South Africa (1) had a property interest in rock lobsters unlawfully harvested from its waters and (2) was a victim under the MVRA and VWPA. The 2nd Circuit therefore held that restitution was owed to South Africa and the case was remanded for the district court to calculate restitution. |
Case | ||
| NC - Animal Shelters - § 153A-442. Animal shelters | N.C.G.S.A. § 153A-442 | This North Carolina statute authorizes counties within the state to establish, maintain, and appropriate available funding for animal shelters. The statute also describes the standards that animal shelters in the county should meet. | Statute | ||
| Citizens for Better Forestry v. U.S. Dept. of Agriculture | 632 F.Supp.2d 968 (N.D.Cal.,2009) | 2009 WL 1883728 (N.D.Cal.) |
Plaintiffs Citizens for Better Forestry brought an action against Defendant U.S. Department of Agriculture alleging failure to adhere to certain procedures required by NEPA and the ESA after Defendant promulgated regulations governing the development of management plans for forests within the National Forest System upon preparation of an allegedly insufficient Environmental Impact Statement and without preparation of a Biological Assessment or consultation with the Fisheries and Wildlife Service or the National Marine Fisheries Service. On parties’ cross motions, the United States District Court granted Plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment and denied Defendant’s motion for summary judgment, finding that Plaintiffs had standing, that Defendant did not comply with its requirements under the NEPA because the Environmental Impact Statement prepared by Defendant did not adequately evaluate the environmental impacts of the proposed regulations, and that Defendant did not comply with its requirements under the ESA because Defendant did not prepare an adequate Biological Assessment. |
Case | |
| MD - Hunting, Internet - § 10-426. Hunting with guns or devices via Internet connection prohibited | MD Code, Natural Resources, § 10-426 | Md. Nat. Res. Code Ann. § 10-426 | This statute prohibits hunting via the Internet with the state of Maryland. Violation of the statute could result in a misdemeanor conviction, a fine not exceeding $10,000, imprisonment, and hunting license revocation. | Statute |