Results
Displaying 81 - 90 of 6822
| Title | Citation | Alternate Citation | Agency Citation | Summary | Type |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| U.S. v. Lee | 937 F.2d 1388 (9th Cir. 1991) |
Fishermen who took part in importing salmon that they knew or should have known had been taken in violation of Taiwanese regulation, could be subjected to criminal penalties for violation of the Lacey Act, despite the fact not all fishermen who were involved actually violated the Taiwanese regulation. The fishermen argue that the term "any foreign law" encompasses only foreign statutes, not foreign regulations; however, the court previously ruled that a Taiwanese regulation prohibiting the export of salmon without a permit constituted a "foreign law" under section 3372(a)(2)(A) and thereby supported an Act violation. |
Case | ||
| Association des Eleveurs de Canards et d'Oies du Quebec v. Harris | 729 F.3d 937 (9th Cir. 2013) | 13 Cal. Daily Op. Serv, 2013 WL 4615131 (9th Cir. 2013) |
Prior to California's Force Fed Birds law—which bans the sale of products that are the result of force feeding birds to enlarge their livers beyond normal size—coming into effect, two non-California entities produced foie gras that was sold at a California restaurant. When the law came into effect, all three entities sought to enjoin the state of California from enforcing the law; they argued the law was unconstitutionally vague and violated the Commerce Clause of the U.S. Constitution. The district court, however, denied their motion for preliminary injunction. On appeal, the 9th Circuit affirmed the lower court’s decision to deny the preliminary injunction. |
Case | |
| MO - Wildlife - Chapter 252. Department of Conservation--Fish and Game. | V. A. M. S. 252.040 | MO ST 252.040 | No wildlife shall be pursued, taken, killed, possessed or disposed of except in the manner, to the extent and at the time or times permitted by such rules and regulations; and any pursuit, taking, killing, possession or disposition thereof, except as permitted by such rules and regulations, are hereby prohibited. Any person violating this section shall be guilty of a misdemeanor except that any person violating any of the rules and regulations pertaining to record keeping requirements imposed on licensed fur buyers and fur dealers shall be guilty of an infraction and shall be fined not less than ten dollars nor more than one hundred dollars. At least one case has held this statute to be applicable to dogs chasing deer. | Statute | |
| Sentencia T-034/13 | Sentencia T-034/13 | Plaintiff filed a tutela against the homeowner’s association, who changed change the apartment complex rules to prohibit pets from using the elevator. In this decision, the court held that It is not viable for homeowners’ associations to prohibit pets from using the elevators. This is because the right to free development of personality and the right to personal and family intimacy encompass the right to have a pet. Horizontal property rules may not go against current laws or violate the resident’s fundamental rights. However, there can be limitations and parameters to these rights so long as they are established to guarantee respect for the rights of others, a peaceful coexistence, and the regulations are reasonable and proportionate. | Case | ||
| Miller v. Nye Cty. | 488 F. Supp. 3d 973 (D. Nev. 2020) | 2020 WL 5648198 | In this case, Plaintiff Gary Miller sued Nye County and one of its deputies under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and various Nevada state laws for the fatal shooting of his dog, Blu. Blu was shot four times at the plaintiff's residence after officers responded when Mr. Miller accidentally set off a silent alarm at his own residence. The County and deputy moved to dismiss three of the plaintiff's claims and his request for punitive damages against the County. The court granted the motion to dismiss those claims because it found that the County is statutorily immune from Plaintiff's negligent-training claim and because he lacks the necessary relationship with Blu to establish a claim for negligent infliction of emotional distress. With regard to the punitive damages claim in a § 1983 action, the court granted the County's motion to dismiss that request for relief. Finally, the court granted the County's motion to dismiss Miller's § 1983 claim against it because the plaintiff failed to plead sufficient facts to state a plausible claim for relief under a theory of single-incident liability. However, the court granted leave to amend this claim if the plaintiff can plausibly allege that the County has engaged in a pattern of similar conduct, or that the scenario in this case is likely to recur and that an officer who is ill-equipped to handle the scenario will likely commit a constitutional violation. | Case | |
| Dreyer v. Cyriacks | 112 Cal.App. 279 (1931) | 297 P. 35 (1931) | Plaintiffs brought action against Defendant for damages after Defendant shot and killed Plaintiffs’ dog. The Trial Court set aside a jury verdict granting Plaintiffs $100,000 in actual and $25,000 in punitive damages, on the ground that the verdict was excessive. On appeal, the District Court of Appeal, First District, Division 1, California, affirmed the Trial Court decision, finding that the Trial Court was justified in holding that both the actual and punitive damages awards were grossly excessive, given the circumstances under which the incident occurred. In making its decision, the Court of Appeal pointed out that, although this particular dog had been in the motion picture industry, dogs are nonetheless considered property, and as such, are to be ascertained in the same manner as other property, and not in the same manner as human life. | Case | |
| NM - Pet Trusts - Chapter 46A. Uniform Trust Code. | NMSA 1978, §46A-4-408 | NM ST §46A-4-408 | Section 46A-4-408, was adopted in 2003, and did not repeal the previous pet trust law. However, in 2016, the original pet trust law (46A-4-407) was finally repealed. The new section follows the language of the Uniform Trust Code and simply states that a trust for the care of an animal alive during the settlor's lifetime is valid. The trust terminates upon the death of the last animal named and any excess trust property is distributed to the settlor, if living, or his or her successors in interest. | Statute | |
| Maps of U.S. Laws | The following links provide access to maps on various animal law-related topics. | Basic page | |||
| MD - Licenses - Article 24. Political Subdivisions--Miscellaneous Provisions. | MD Code, Local Government, § 13-115 | MD LOCAL GOVT § 13-115 | This law, enacted in 2013, replaces a former section that dealt with the running at large of dogs. The new section concerns Calvert County and establishes guidelines for the issuance of dog and kennel licenses and dog tags. The "Animal Matters Hearing Board" was also created under this law. The Board's duty is to "resolve disputes and controversies arising under animal control ordinances adopted under subsection (c) of this section." The law also makes a dog running at large in Calvert County without a properly attached licensed a "nuisance," subject to seizure, detention, and euthanasia. A holding period for seized dogs (72 hours) is also established under the new law. | Statute | |
| CT- Pet Shops - Sec. 22-344-21a. Prohibited sales | CT ADC § 22-344-32 - 94 | Regs. Conn. State Agencies § 22-344-32 - § 22-344-94 | This Connecticut regulation lists the animals of which the exhibition, sale or offer for sale by a pet shop is prohibited. The condition in which commercial kennel facilities, pet shops, grooming facilities, training facilities, and animal shelters must be kept are described including sanitation, health requirements, ventilation, and other structural requirements. | Administrative |