|Title||Citation||Alternate Citation||Agency Citation||Summary||Type|
|EU - Transport - Council Regulation (EC) No 1255/97 of 25 June 1997 concerning Community criteria for staging points||Council Regulation (EC) No 1255/97||
The European Union lays down common criteria applicable to control posts (or "staging points") at which animals must be unloaded during long journeys. These rules are designed to ensure the health and welfare of the animals during such stops.
|Miccosukee Tribe of Indians of Florida v. U.S.||697 F.Supp.2d 1324 (S.D.Fla., 2010)||2010 WL 1037962 (S.D.Fla.)||
This case examines the requirements surrounding the issuance of an Incidental Take Statement (ITS), a statement that authorizes harm to an endangered species, but that must include a trigger for reviewing the decision (known as “re-consultation”) at the point when there is a risk of jeopardizing the species. The trigger must be a numerical trigger describing the “take” (e.g., the capturing or killing of members of an endangered species) in terms of specific population data unless it is impractical to do so. Specifically, this case explores whether the Army Corps of Engineers and FTS were able to use an ecological surrogate in place of a numerical trigger in an ITS that was promulgated in the process of conservation work in the Everglades. This conservation work involved manipulating water levels in the Everglades and impacted the viability of three species protected under the Endangered Species Act (the Cape Sable seaside sparrow, the Everglade snail kite, and the wood stork), as well as the well-being of the Miccosukee Tribe of Indians.
|Balelo v. Baldridge||724 F.2d 753 (1983)||
Defendants, secretary and government agencies, appealed the decision fo the United States District Court for the Southern District of California, in favor of plaintiff captains invalidating an agency regulation pertaining to the taking and related acts incidental to commercial fishing.
|Estis v. Mills||--- So.3d ----, 2021 WL 1396598 (La.App. 2 Cir. 4/14/21)||53,852 (La.App. 2 Cir. 4/14/21)||The Estis' sued the Mills for the wrongful killing and disposal of the Appellants’ German Shepherd. On appeal, the Appellants argue that the district court erred in permitting the Appellees to amend their original answer to now include an affirmative defense of immunity pursuant to La. R.S. 3:2654, which would relieve the Appellees of liability. Further, the Appellants contend that the district court erred in granting the Appellees’ motion for summary judgment, asserting that there remain genuine issues of material fact, and notwithstanding liability for the death of the dog, the court erred in dismissing the Appellees’ claim for conversion. The parties were neighbors whose property was separated by an enclosed pasture where the Mills used to keep horses. Despite requests from Mills, the Estis' dogs would enter the pasture and harass the horses. In 2017, Mills discovered the dog yet again in the pasture with the horses, so Mr. Mills shot, killed, and disposed of the dog. Subsequently, the Estis family filed suit seeking damages for the intentional killing of the dog and disposing of the dog in a bayou approximately ten miles away. The lower court granted a motion in favor of the Mills agreeing that they had immunity from suit under La. R.S. 3:2654.1. On appeal to this court, the Estises argue that the Mills waived the immunity under the statute because they failed to affirmatively plead the defense in their answer to the pleadings. This court found that immunity had not been affirmative pled as required by statute. Consequently, the Mills received permission to amend their answer and plead the immunity provision. Following granting of the Mills' second motion for summary judgment based on the immunity statute, the Estises appeal that decision. As to Estis' argument that leave to amend the answer was erroneously granted, this court first noted that determination whether to allow pleadings to be amended is discretionary and will not be reversed absent an abuse of discretion. The court found no evidence that there was bad faith in the decision to the amend the pleadings like delay. Further, there was no demonstration of prejudice from the granting of an amended answer. As to Estis' claim that summary judgment was erroneously granted, the court discussed a photograph that was submitted in evidence support showing a horse grazing with its back presented "indifferently" to the dog. The Mills countered with the evidence of an independent eyewitness to the incident who asserted that the dog harassed the horses. The court noted that issues of the credibility of evidence have no place in a summary judgment appeal. As a result, this court found that the lower court judge's statements that, in effect, weighed the credibility of the photograph versus the testimony of the witness were inappropriate. Thus, the lower court erred in granting the motion for summary judgment. Finally, the court evaluated Estis' conversion claims for the disposal of the dog's dead body. This court said that, [i]f the court finds that the killing of the dog falls under La. R.S. 3:2654, then the claim for conversion of the dog's body does not survive. However, if there were personal items on the dog at the time of the killing, such as a tracking collar or items of other value, then a conversion claim can be made for those items. If the court determines that the immunity statute does not apply, then the claim for conversion and any other applicable damages may apply." Thus, the trial court's judgment to allow the motion to amend the pleadings was affirmed, the granting of the summary judgment was reversed, and the dismissal of Estis' claims for conversion was reversed and remanded for further proceedings.||Case|
|Chile - Animal Welfare- Animal Protection Act (in Spanish)||Ley Nº 20.380 - Ley sobre protección de animales.||Diario Oficial Nº 39.477, 3 de octubre de 2009, págs. 3-5||Ley 20.380 is the is the Chilean Animal Protection Statute. It recognizes animals as living beings and establishes the norms for the “recognition, protection and respect of animals” in order to avoid unnecessary pain and suffering. This law punishes animal cruelty with imprisonment of up to 3 years. Labs, zoos, circuses, and other establishments that keep animals for exhibition and entertainment are allowed, so long as they have the adequate facilities according to the species and adequate safety for people. Animal experimentation in schools is allowed under this law. Rodeo, rein-back and equestrian sports are excepted from provisions of this law.||Statute|
|AZ - Pet Trusts - Honorary trusts; trusts||A. R. S. § 14-2907; A. R. S. § 14-10408||AZ ST § 14-2907; AZ ST § 14-10408||This Arizona statute allows for the creation of a trust for a designated domestic or pet animal, and must be performed in 21 years or less. The trust terminates when no living animal is covered by the trust; the remaining property is distributed according to statute and cannot be converted by the trustee.||Statute|
|Connecticut General Statutes 1918: Chapter 337: Section 6546||Conn. Gen. Stat. § 6546 (1918)||Section 6546 of Chapter 337 from the 1918 General Laws of Connecticut covers jurisdiction and powers of courts. Specifically, the statute states the power of the court to issue search warrants for animal cruelty.||Statute|
|U.S. v. Tomono||143 F.3d 1401 (11th Cir. 1998)||
Kei Tomono pleaded guilty to violations of the Lacey Act, 16 U.S.C. §§ 3372(a)(1) & 3373(d)(1)(B), and the federal anti-smuggling statute, 18 U.S.C. § 545, in connection with his illegal importation of reptiles. At sentencing, the district court granted a three-level downward departure for what it termed "cultural differences." The court held that "cultural differences" were not significant enough to remove this case from the body of cases contemplated by the Sentencing Guidelines so as to allow for downward departure.
|ND - Rabies - 48.1-13-01-01. Importation requirements - Certificate of veterinary inspection||ND ADC 48.1-13-01-01||N.D. Admin. Code § 48.1-13-01-01||This North Dakota regulation states that any dog, cat, or ferret over three months of age imported into the state must have a certification of a current rabies vaccination. It also provides other requirements for dog, cat, and ferret importation into the state.||Administrative|
|WA - Ordinances - 35.27.370. Specific powers enumerated||West's RCWA 35.27.370||WA ST 35.27.370||This Washington statute provides that the council of said town shall have power to pass ordinances not in conflict with the Constitution and laws of this state, or of the United States. Specifically, the council may regulate, restrain, or prohibit the running at large of any and all domestic animals within the city limits, or any part or parts thereof, and to regulate the keeping of such animals within any part of the city; to establish, maintain and regulate a common pound for estrays, and to appoint a poundkeeper, who shall be paid out of the fines and fees imposed on, and collected from, the owners of any impounded stock.||Statute|