Results
Displaying 6111 - 6120 of 6637
| Title | Citation | Alternate Citation | Agency Citation | Summary | Type |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Ctr. for Biological Diversity v. Haaland | 639 F. Supp. 3d 1355 (Ct. Int'l Trade 2023) | No. 22-00339, 2023 WL 3994447 (Ct. Int'l Trade June 14, 2023) | A small porpoise called the vaquita is on the verge of extinction, largely due to gillnet fishing of the totoaba fish that commonly traps and kills vaquitas as well. This fishing takes place in waters in Mexico’s territory, where the last few vaquitas live. In 2020, under the Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA), the United States banned the importation from Mexico of seafood products caught with gillnets inside the vaquita’s range. The Center for Biological Diversity, the Animal Welfare Institute, and the Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. (Plaintiffs) brought this lawsuit in 2022 against the Secretary of the U.S. Department of the Interior Deb Haaland and the U.S. Department of the Interior (Defendants). Plaintiffs argue that Defendants caused an unlawful delay responding to a 2014 letter requesting that Secretary of the Interior certify the embargo against Mexico in order to curb the fishing of the totoaba, as doing otherwise diminished the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES) by furthering the extinction of the vaquita. Plaintiffs also requested an order enjoining defendants from further delay in responding to the petition to certify Mexico, and costs and attorneys’ fees associated with the lawsuit. After settlement negotiations took place, parties reached a conditional settlement, and Secretary Haaland certified to the President that the fishing of totoaba by Mexican nationals and related killing of vaquita diminishes the effectiveness of CITES. It remains unclear whether Mexico has made progress in implementing the plan to save the vaquita, whether CITES is being implemented effectively by Mexico, and whether the President will act on the Secretary’s certification. After confirming that the Secretary of the Interior certified Mexico pursuant to the settlement agreement, parties entered into a voluntary dismissal and the court dismissed the lawsuit. | Case | |
| MT - Initiative - I-177, Initiative to Prohibit Trapping and Snaring of Animals (2016) | I-177 (2016) | Initiative 177 is a law proposed by initiative petition (cited in the law as "Montana Trap-Free Public Lands Act"). According to the official summary, "I- 177 generally prohibits the use of traps and snares for animals on any public lands within Montana and establishes misdemeanor criminal penalties for violations of the trapping prohibitions. I-177 allows the Montana Department of Fish, Wildlife, and Parks to use certain traps on public land when necessary if nonlethal methods have been tried and found ineffective. I-177 allows trapping by public employees and their agents to protect public health and safety, protect livestock and property, or conduct specified scientific and wildlife management activities. I-177, if passed by the electorate, will become effective immediately." A "yes" vote is in favor of the law that would prohibit the use of traps and snares on state public lands. A "no" vote is a vote against the proposed law that would prohibit the public from placing traps and snares on public lands. | Statute | ||
| Anderson v. City of Blue Ash | 798 F.3d 338 (6th Cir. 2015) | 2015 WL 4774591 (6th Cir., 2015) | This case stems from a dispute between Plaintiff/Appellant and the city of Blue Ash (City) on whether Plaintiff/Appellant could keep a miniature horse at her house as a service animal for her disabled minor daughter. Plaintiff/Appellant’s daughter suffers from a number of disabilities that affect her ability to walk and balance independently, and the horse enabled her to play and get exercise in her backyard without assistance from an adult. In 2013, the City passed a municipal ordinance banning horses from residential property and then criminally prosecuted plaintiff/appellant for violating it. Plaintiff/Appellant’s defense was that the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”), and the Fair Housing Amendments Act (“FHAA”), both entitled her to keep the horse at her house as a service animal for her daughter. Rejecting those arguments, the Hamilton County Municipal Court found Plaintiff/Appellant guilty. Plaintiff/Appellant filed suit in federal court arguing that the ADA and FHAA entitled her to keep her horse as a service animal. The district court granted summary judgment to the City, finding that Plaintiff/Appellant's claims were barred by claim and issue preclusion stemming from her Municipal Court conviction. On appeal, the Sixth Circuit found that, because the fact-finding procedures available in a criminal proceeding in municipal court differed substantially from those available in a civil proceeding, Plaintiff/Appellant's conviction had no preclusive effect on this lawsuit. Furthermore, while there was no evidence that the City's actions were motivated by discriminatory intent against the minor daughter or had a disparate impact on disabled individuals, there were significant factual disputes regarding whether the ADA or FHAA required the City to permit Plaintiff/Appellant to keep her miniature horse at her house. The district court's grant of summary judgment to the City on those claims was therefore reversed. | Case | |
| MN - Meat - Chapter 31. Food. Meats, Generally | M. S. A. § 31.60 - 31.65 | MN ST § 31.60 - 31.65 | This Minnesota chapter deals with sale and processing of meat in the state. Among the provisions include a prohibition on the sale of veal when calves are killed when less than four weeks old; the sale of horse meat for human consumption unless conspicuous notices are provided; and the sale of unwholesome game or poultry. The chapter also creates a Meat Industry Division in the Department of Agriculture who enforces and administers these laws. | Statute | |
| HI - Veterinary - CHAPTER 471. VETERINARY MEDICINE. | H R S § 471-1 - 18; H R S § 472-1 - 3 | HI ST § 471-1 - 18; HI ST § 472-1 - 3 | These are the state's veterinary practice laws. Among the provisions include licensing requirements, laws concerning the state veterinary board, veterinary records laws, and the laws governing disciplinary actions for impaired or incompetent practitioners. | Statute | |
| WA - Importation - Chapter 16-54. Animal Importation | WASH. ADMIN. CODE §16-54-030 | WAC 16-54-030 | Washington requires health certificates for the importation of most animals into the state. | Administrative | |
| Proceso No. 15111-2014-0152 Jaguar Killing - Ecuador - Do not publish | Case | ||||
| Florice v. Brown | 679 So.2d 501 (La.App. 2 Cir. 8/21/96) | 28,538 (La.App. 2 Cir. 8/21/96) |
In this Louisiana case, an inexperienced rider was thrown from a horse and sued the horse's owner for negligence and strict liability. After the lower court dismissed the claim, the plaintiff appealed. On appeal, this court held that the horse did not pose an unreasonable risk of harm to the rider such as to warrant imposing strict liability on the owner. The court noted that not every risk of injury posed by an animal represents an unreasonable risk. Here, the evidence established that the horse had a gentle disposition and the movement that caused the plaintiff to be thrown was not unusual or aggressive behavior but rather was simply "horse-like behavior." |
Case | |
| In re: OTTO BEROSINI. | 54 Agric. Dec. 886 (1995) | 1995 WL 560811 (U.S.D.A.) | Congress has authority under Commerce Clause (Art I, § 8, cl 3) to give Department of Agriculture authority to regulate interstate activities within purview of Animal Welfare Act (7 USCS §§ 2131 et seq.), including activities of animal exhibitors. | Case | |
| RECURSO DE NULIDAD RECHAZADO. VÍCTIMA EN EL DELITO DE MALTRATO ANIMAL | Defendant was found guilty of animal cruelty for killing Donnkan y Káiser, two German Shepherds that were attacking a calf belonging to defendant's neighbor. The lower court sentenced him to 21 days of imprisonment and, suspension from public office during this time, and a fine of two monthly tax units. Defendant appealed but the appeal was rejected. However, he was granted a suspended sentence. This decision talks about the victims of animal cruelty . the court states that under the criminal code, victims are those offended by the crime. "Although it is true that it can be considered that much progress has been made in the legal protection of animals and, fundamentally, in the protection of those, it has not come to be considered that they have the quality of victims as such of a criminal act because they are not people, and continue to be controlled by human beings who, as their owner, is the one who can be considered the victim." | Case |