Results
| Title | Citation | Alternate Citation | Summary | Type |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Florida Key Deer v. Paulison | 522 F.3d 1133 (C.A.11(Fla.), 2008) | 2008 WL 842423 (C.A.11(Fla.)) |
FEMA, under the National Flood Insurance Program, issues insurance to promote new development in flooded areas. Plaintiffs sought to compel FEMA to enter into ESA consultation with FWS, and once that consultation occurred, amended their complaint to challenge the sufficiency of the FWS' biological opinion and reasonable and prudent alternatives. The Eleventh Circuit held for the plaintiffs, reasoning that FEMA had not sufficiently complied with the obligation on federal agencies to carry out their programs consistent with the conservation of endangered and threatened species. |
Case |
| KY - Ferret - 150.355 Ferrets | KRS § 150.355 | KY ST § 150.355 | This Kentucky law prohibits the use of ferrets in hunting. Additionally, the law states that no person shall keep a ferret which was born in the wild as a pet or for any purpose, unless he or she has procured a ferret permit from the commissioner. | Statute |
| CA - Cruelty, unattended animal - § 43.100. Property damage or trespass to motor vehicle resulting from rescue of animal; | West's Ann.Cal.Civ.Code § 43.100 | CA CIVIL § 43.100 | This California law effective January 1, 2017 states that there is no civil liability for property damage to a motor vehicle if the damage was caused by a person rescuing an animal under Section 597.7 of the Penal Code. | Statute |
| American Dog Owners Ass'n v. City of Yakima | 777 P.2d 1046 (Wash.1989) | 113 Wash.2d 213 (Wash.1989) |
In this Washington case, plaintiff brought suit against the City of Yakima challenging an ordinance that banned “pit bulls” dogs. The Superior Court, Yakima County, granted city's motion for summary judgment, and plaintiffs appealed. Plaintiffs first argued that the ordinance is vague because a person of ordinary intelligence cannot tell what is prohibited. The Supreme Court disagreed, finding that the City used adequate standards for identification in the professional standards and illustrations to show that a particular dog meets the professional standard. Thus, the Court found that the ordinance gave sufficient notice of what was conduct prohibited. Summary judgment for the City was affirmed.
|
Case |
| NJ - Impound - Chapter 19. Dogs, Taxation and Liability for Injuries Caused by | NJSA 4:19-26 | NJ ST 4:19-26 | This New Jersey statute provides that, if a dog is declared vicious or potentially dangerous, the owner of the dog shall be liable to the municipality in which the dog is impounded for the costs and expenses of impounding and destroying the dog. The municipality may establish by ordinance a schedule of these costs and expenses. | Statute |
| MA - Pet Trust - Chapter 203. Trusts. | M.G.L.A. 203E § 408 | MA ST 203E § 408 (formerly MA ST 203 § 3C) | In 2011, Massachusetts enacted this law, which allows the creation of a trust for the continuing care of an animal alive during the settlor's lifetime. The trust terminates upon the death of the last animal named in the trust. A court may reduce the amount of property held by the trust if it determines that the amount substantially exceeds the amount required for the intended use and the court finds that there will be no substantial adverse impact in the care, maintenance, health or appearance of the covered animal. The statute was renumbered in 2012. | Statute |
| United States v. Mitchell | 553 F.2d 996 (1977) |
This appeal turns on whether the Marine Mammal Protection Act ("MMPA"), and related regulations, apply to an American citizen taking dolphins within the territorial waters of a foreign sovereign state. The defendant-appellant, Jerry Mitchell, is an American citizen convicted of violating the Act by capturing 21 dolphins within the three-mile limit of the Commonwealth of the Bahamas. The court held that the criminal prohibitions of the MMPA do not reach conduct in the territorial waters of a foreign sovereignty and reversed the conviction. |
Case | |
| Nonhuman Rights Project, Inc. ex rel. Beulah v. R.W. Commerford & Sons, Inc. | 2017 WL 7053738 (Not Reported in A.3d) (Conn. Super. Ct. Dec. 26, 2017) | In this case the petitioner, Nonhuman Rights Project, Inc., sought a writ of habeas corpus on behalf of three elephants, Beulah, Minnie, and Karen, which are owned by the respondents, R.W. Commerford & Sons, Inc. and William R. Commerford, as president of R.W. Commerford & Sons, Inc. The issue was whether the court should grant the petition for writ of habeas corpus because the elephants are “persons” entitled to liberty and equality for the purposes of habeas corpus. The court denied the petition on the ground that the court lacks subject matter jurisdiction (because the plaintiffs lacked standing) and the petition was wholly frivolous on its face in legal terms (elephants are not "persons" according to the court). The court he court dismissed the petition for writ of habeas, but pointed to the state's anti-cruelty laws "as a potential alternative method of ensuring the well-being of any animal." | Case | |
| Commonwealth v. Austin | 846 A.2d 798 (Pa. 2004) |
Defendant appeals his conviction of harboring a dangerous dog. The Court affirmed, holding that there was sufficient evidence supporting the conviction, and also holding that serious injuries are not a prerequisite for convicting a defendant for harboring a dangerous animal. |
Case | |
| MS - Horses - Slaughter (Chapter 33. Meat, Meat-Food and Poultry Regulation and Inspection) | Miss. Code Ann. § 75-33-3 | MS ST § 75-33-3 | Construes the phrase "unfit for human consumption" in the very broad Mississippi Meat Inspection Act of 1960 to apply to horse meat and meat-food products. | Statute |