Results
| Title | Citation | Alternate Citation | Summary | Type |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Alliance for the Wild Rockies v. Austin | 55 F. Supp. 3d 1294 (D. Mont. 2014) | 2014 WL 5439589 | Plaintiff challenged the defendants' approval of the Rennic Stark Project in the Ninemile Ranger District of the Lolo National Forest under the National Environmental Policy Act, the National Forest Management Act, the Endangered Species Act, and the Administrative Procedure Act. The Project proposed a host of forest management measures. Under the National Environmental Protection Act, the defendant published an Environmental Assessment (“EA”) for the project in November 2012. The EA discussed the likely effects of the project on a number of wildlife species, including the ESA-listed threatened Canada lynx, the Forest Service-sensitive fisher, the Forest Service-sensitive North American wolverine, goshawk, and westslope cutthroat trout. The defendant signed and issued a Decision Notice adopting Alternative 2 from the EA, as well as a Finding of No Significant Impact. Plaintiff timely appealed the defendant's decision, but the defendant denied the appeal. Plaintiff then filed its complaint in this court and moved for summary judgment. Defendants filed their cross-motion for summary judgment. Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment was denied on all claims and defendants’ motion for summary judgment was granted on all claims. | Case |
| U.S. v. Top Sky | 547 F.2d 486 (9th Cir. 1976) |
Defendant alleged that his treaty-based hunting rights incorporate a right to sell eagles. The court disagreed, finding such an interpretation of those treaty rights contrary to Indian custom and religion. Court also holds that defendant lacks standing to raise a religious challenge to the BGEPA based on the religious rights of others. Court is likewise unpersuaded by defendant's overbreadth claim. For further discussion on the abrogation of Indian treaty rights under the BGEPA, see Detailed Discussion of Eagle Act . |
Case | |
| U.S. v. Fountain | 277 F.3d 714 (5th Cir. 2001) |
Roosevelt Fountain, Sr. ("Fountain") and his daughter, Shirley Fountain Ellison ("Ellison") operated an oyster fishing business in Cameron Parish, Louisiana, called Fountain Seafood, Inc., where their convictions arose from the manner in which they operated the business (i.e., tagging violations, taking of oysters from closed areas, taking of excess limits of oysters, and licensing violations). The indictment further contended that the appellants worked to accomplish this goal by creating false records relating to their oyster sales. The court held that it was not error for no instruction on the term "willfully," since the false record provision refers to "knowingly" as the mens rea requirement. Further, the court held that "materiality" is also not a provision of the Lacey Act's false records provision. |
Case | |
| Placey v. Placey | 51 So.3d 374 (Ala. Civ. App., 2010) | 2010 WL 2342397 (Ala. Civ. App.) |
The appellate court held that the Protection from Abuse Act authorized the trial court to determine and award ownership of Preston the dog in a domestic violence dispute between a mother and daughter. It then awarded ownership rights to the mother because took better care of the Preston and it was in his best interest. |
Case |
| RI - Vehicle - § 31-22-28. Transporting animals | Gen. Laws, 1956, § 31-22-28 | RI ST § 31-22-28 | This Rhode Island law makes it unlawful for any person to transport any animal, whether for business or pleasure, in an open air motor vehicle unless certain requirements are met: (1) the animal is kept in an enclosed area of the vehicle; (2) the animal is under physical control of a person; or (3) the animal is safely restrained and harnessed by means other than a neck restraint. Violation results in a fine of $50 to $100, with an increase of up to $200 for each subsequent offense. | Statute |
| Chile - Cruelty - LEY 21.020 | LEY 21.020 (1106037) | This law establishes the rights and responsibilities of those in possession of companion animals and establishes general duties such as adequate treatment, and meeting the needs of the animal according to their species. Some important aspects of this law include the prohibition of companion animal fighting when it is organized as an event, the training of animals to reinforce aggressive behavior, and the sacrifice of animals as a method of population control. It also prohibits the abandonment of animals and the selling of animals in the streets. It strengthens penalties for animal cruelty in the criminal code and Law No. N°20.380 (Animal protection statute), and imposes jail time and an absolute prohibition to possess animals for those found to commit animal cruelty. | Statute | |
| Reglamento de la Ley 29830, 2017 - Peru | Decreto Supremo Nº 001-2017-MIMP, 2017 | Reglamento de la ley Ley 29830 | Este reglamento se aprueba mediante el Decreto Supremo No. 001-2017-MIMP. Su proposito es establecer las disposiciones de la Ley No. 29830, modificada por la Ley No. 30433, que promueve y regula el uso de perros guía por personas con discapacidad visual. Entre otras disposiciones, esta normativa designa al Consejo Nacional para la Integración de la Persona con Discapacidad (CONADIS) como la autoridad responsable de implementar y definir los parámetros para el registro de perros guía en el Registro Nacional de Perros Guía. Además, establece que a las personas con discapacidad visual y sus perros guía se les debe permitir ingresar y permanecer en su lugar de trabajo, estudio y cualquier otro establecimiento en igualdad de condiciones, independientemente de si el lugar es público o privado, y sin costo adicional por llevar al perro. Esto incluye el acceso al transporte público. | Statute |
| CA - Swap Meets - Chapter 10. Sale of Animals at Swap Meets. | West's Ann. Cal. Health & Safety Code § 122370 - 122374 | CA HLTH & S § 122370 - 122374 | This chapter (effective January 1, 2016) covers the sale of animals at swap meets in the state. A swap meet operator may allow a vendor to sell animals at a swap meet so long as the local jurisdiction has adopted standards for the care and treatment of the animals. The care and treatment of the animals must include that time that the animals are at the swap meet and during the transportation to and from the swap meet. The swap meet vendors must maintain, among other things, sanitary facilities for the animals, provide proper heating and ventilation in the facilities, provide adequate nutrition and humane care and treatment, and provide adequate space for all kept in the facilities. A swap meet vendor who offers for sale at a swap meet in a jurisdiction that has not authorized the sale is guilty of an infraction punishable by a fine up to $100. If a swap meet vendor is found guilty of this infraction for a subsequent time, he or she will be fined up to $500 per violation. Some exceptions include: events held by 4-H Clubs, Junior Farmers Clubs, Future Farmer Clubs, the California Exposition and State Fair, the sale of cattle on consignment at any public cattle sales market, and a public animal control agency or shelter. | Statute |
| New Zealand - Anmal Welfare - New Zealand Code for Meat Chickens | The purpose of this code is to set out the minimum standard of care that owners of meat chickens (broilers) and persons who are in charge of them must achieve order to meet their obligations under the Animal Welfare Act 1999 (the Act). The minimum standards in this code have a legal effect under the Act (see Appendix II: Legislative Requirements). Example indicators do not have a legal effect but can be used to demonstrate whether minimum standards are being met. This code also includes information and recommended best practices which are intended to encourage all those responsible for implementing the code to adopt a standard of husbandry, care and handling exceeding that required by minimum standards. | Administrative | ||
| Dart v Singer | [2010] QCA 75 |
The applicants pleaded guilty to a number of charges under the Animal Care and Protection Act 2001 (Qld) following the seizure of 113 live dogs, one cat, 488 rats, 73 mice, 12 guinea pigs and 11 birds from their premises due to unsanitary and inappropriate living conditions. The applicants claimed that RSPCA officers were acting ultra vires and that a stay preventing the RSCPA from parting with the animals should be effected. The applicants' argument failed. |
Case |