Results
| Title | Citation | Alternate Citation | Agency Citation | Summary | Type |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| King v. CJM Country Stables | 315 F.Supp.2d 1061 (D. Hawaii, 2004) | 2004 WL 943443 (D. Hawaii) |
Horseback rider was bitten during a trail ride and brought suit in personal injury. After removal to Federal Court, the Court held that Hawaii's recreational activity liability statute was applicable and that summary judgment was not appropriate. Motion for summary judgment denied. |
Case | |
| Argentina - Wildlife - LEY Nº 22.421 | LEY Nº 22.421 | This law declares the wild fauna in the Territory to be of public interest, as well as its protection, conservation, propagation, repopulation, and rational use. Citizens have the duty to protect the wild fauna, in accordance with the regulations issued by the enforcement authorities for its conservation and management. | Statute | ||
| US - Assistance Animal - Assessing a Person’s Request to Have an Animal as a Reasonable Accommodation Under the Fair Housing Act | FHEO-2020-01 | This guidance replaces HUD’s prior guidance, FHEO-2013-01,on housing providers’ obligations regarding service animals and assistance animals. In particular, this guidance provides a set of best practices regarding the type and amount of documentation a housing provider may ask an individual with a disability to provide in support of an accommodation request for a support animal, including documentation of a disability (that is, physical or mental impairments that substantially limit at least one major life activity) or a disability-related need for a support animal when the disability or disability-related need for the animal is non-obvious and not known to the housing provider. By providing greater clarity through this guidance, HUD seeks to provide housing providers with a tool they may use to reduce burdens that they may face when they are uncertain about the type and amount of documentation they may need and may be permitted to request when an individual seeks to keep a support animal in housing. | Administrative | ||
| AK - Initiatives - Ballot Measure 6 (hunters using airplanes) | Ballot Measure 6 (2000) | Voters are asked to either approve or reject a law allowing hunters to use airplanes to land and shoot wolves on the same day they fly. The law allows any person with a hunting or trapping license to land and shoot in areas established by the Board of Game. No additional permit may be required. The law also allows the Alaska Department of Fish and Game to use agents, as well as employees, to engage in same day airborne shooting of wolves. The measure passed with 53% of the vote. | Statute | ||
| WI - Wildlife - Subchapter XII. Wildlife Damage | W.S.A. 29.885 - 29.89 | WI ST 29.885 - 29.89 | Under these Wisconsin statutes, wild animals that are causing damage or a nuisance may be removed. These statutes also establish a wildlife damage abatement program and venison processing and donation program. Wildlife control measures in urban communities and management of double-crested cormorants are also provided. | Statute | |
| UK - Dangerous - Dangerous Wild Animals Act 1976 ("DWAA") | 1976 c. 38 |
The Dangerous Wild Animals Act ("DWAA") was originally enacted in 1976 and amended in 2010. The act ensures that individuals who keep wild animals do so in a way that minimizes the risk to the public. In particular, the act provides that no person may keep any dangerous wild animal except under the authority of a licence granted by a local authority. The local authority that holds the licence may enter the premises where the animal is being kept at all reasonable times to determine whether an offence has been committed in violation of the act. Zoos, circuses, and pet shops are exempt from the act. The act has an accompanying Schedule that specifies the kinds of dangerous wild animals for which a person must obtain a licence under the act. |
Statute | ||
| AMERICAN SOCIETY FOR THE PREVENTION OF CRUELTY TO ANIMALS, et al., Plaintiffs v. RINGLING BROTHERS AND BARNUM & BAILEY CIRCUS, e |
Plaintiffs-ASPCA filed suit against Ringling Brothers and Barnum & Bailey Circus and Feld Entertainment, Inc, under the citizen-suit provision of the Endangered Species Act. Plaintiffs allege that FEI routinely beats elephants, chains them for long periods of time, hits them with sharp bull hooks, breaks baby elephants with force to make them submissive, and forcibly removes baby elephants from their mothers before they are weaned. This conduct, plaintiffs contend, violates the "take" provision of the ESA. |
Pleading | |||
| Center for Biological Diversity v. Salazar | Slip Copy, 2011 WL 6000497 (D.Ariz.) |
Plaintiffs filed action against Interior and FWS to set aside FWS's finding that the desert bald eagle does not qualify as a distinct population segment (“DPS”) entitled to protection under the Endangered Species Act (“ESA”). Plaintiff's motions for summary judgment was granted. The Court found that FWS' 12–month finding was based on the 2007 delisting rule, which failed to comport with the notice, comment, and consultation requirements of the ESA. The Court set aside the 12–month finding as an abuse of discretion.
|
Case | ||
| MD - Animal control - § 1-1315. Adoption fee waiver for veterans at animal control facilities | MD Code, Local Government, § 1-1315 | MD LOCAL GOVT § 1-1315 | This Maryland statute, enacted in 2021, states that an animal control facility operated by a county or municipality shall waive the adoption fee for a dog or cat adopted by a veteran who presents a valid driver's license or identification card issued by the Motor Vehicle Administration that includes a notation of veteran status in accordance with § 12-302 of the Transportation Article. The animal control facility may limit the number of adoption fee waivers granted to an individual under this subsection to one dog and one cat within a 6-month period. | Statute | |
| UT - Wildlife - Title 23. Wildlife Resources Code of Utah | U.C.A. 1953 § 23A-1-101 - 205 (formerly U.C.A. 1953 § 23-13-1 - 19) | UT ST § 23A-1-101 - 205 (formerly UT ST § 23-13-1 - 19) | Under these Utah statutes, all wildlife is the property of the state unless held in private ownership, but it is illegal to hold protected wildlife in captivity, with exceptions, such as for furbearers. | Statute |