Results
Displaying 181 - 190 of 6638
| Title | Citation | Alternate Citation | Agency Citation | Summary | Type |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| US - Critical Habitat - Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Final Rule To Designate Critical Habitat for the Buena Vi | 2005 WL 123168 (F.R.) | 50 CFR Part 17, RIN 1018-AT66 |
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), designated critical habitat for the Buena Vista Lake shrew (Sorex ornatus relictus) (referred to here as the shrew) pursuant to the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (Act). In total, approximately 84 acres (ac) (34 hectares (ha)) occur within the boundaries of the critical habitat designation. The critical habitat is located in the Central Valley floor of Kern County, California. |
Administrative | |
| CA - Bighorn Sheep - Chapter 11. Bighorn Sheep | West's Ann. Cal. Fish & G. Code § 4900 - 4905 | CA FISH & G § 4900 - 4905 | The California Legislature declares that bighorn sheep are an important wildlife resource of the state to be managed and maintained at sound biological levels. The policy of the state is to encourage the preservation, restoration, utilization, and management of California's bighorn sheep population. To achieve these goals, these sections provide for the creation of management unit plans. | Statute | |
| Labor Commission v. FCS Community Management | --- P.3d ----, 2024 WL 370160 (Utah App., 2024) | 2024 UT App 14 | This case concerns the Utah Anti-discrimination and Labor Division's (UALD) determination that a homeowner's association's three-month delay in responding to a member's request for reasonable accommodation to keep chickens on their property as assistance animals for a child with anxiety and PTSD violated the Utah Fair Housing Act. The trial court found that this three month delay was a constructive denial of the request, because under the Utah Fair Housing Act a housing provider must participate in an interactive process to evaluate and discuss the request for accommodation, and no such interactive dialogue or interactive process took place. On appeal, the court found that the three month delay in responding to the request was not unreasonably long, especially considering that the HOA had to review the status of chickens as support animals, chicken waste runoff, and possibility of rodent complaints during this time. The court of appeals also found that the members were not harmed by the HOA's alleged delay, since they were still allowed to keep the chickens at this time. The court of appeals then reversed the trial court's holding granting the members damages, fees, and other relief. | Case | |
| US - Service animals - Part 36. Nondiscrimination on the Basis of Disability | 28 C.F.R. § 35.101 to 109 | This regulation defines disability as a physical or mental impairment that substantially limits one or more of the major life activities of such individual; a record of such an impairment; or being regarded as having such an impairment. It also defines service animal as any guide dog, signal dog, or other animal individually trained to do work or perform tasks for the benefit of an individual with a disability, including, but not limited to, guiding individuals with impaired vision, alerting individuals with impaired hearing to intruders or sounds, providing minimal protection or rescue work, pulling a wheelchair, or fetching dropped items. | Administrative | ||
| Brazil - Animal weflare - PROJETO DE LEI Nº ____, DE 2007 (in portuguese) | PROJETO DE LEI Nº ____, DE 2007 | Institui o Código Federal de Bem-Estar Animal, estabelecendo diretrizes e normas para a garantia de atendimento aos princípios de bem-estar animal nas atividades de controle animal, experimentação animal e produção animal, através da otimização dos processos de desenvolvimento econômico e científico, com o aprimoramento das técnicas e investimentos que garantam maior eficiência, lucratividade e operacionalidade, controle e prevenção sanitário-ambientais, capacitação e preservação das condições de bem-estar do trabalhador, bem como o atendimento à legislação e recomendações nacionais e internacionais. | Statute | ||
| AK - Eagle Protection - Chilkat Bald Eagle Preserve | AS § 41.21.610 - 630 | AK ST § 41.21.610 - 630 | Alaska established the Chilkat Bald Eagle Preserve through the Park System to preserve the eagle in its natural habitat and provide educational and public viewing opportunities. The eagle is not listed as a threatened or endangered species in Alaska, but is legislatively protected in the Chilkat Preserve. | Statute | |
| State v. Kelso | 689 P.2d 1307 (1984) | 70 Or.App. 393 (1984) |
Appeal from a district court decision relating to mental state requirements of an animal owner. The Court of Appeals reversed a district court finding which required a higher mental state than negligence in violation of a statute which provides that the owner or custodian of an animal or livestock shall not "permit" animal to run at large. The Court of Appeals found that the offense does not require a culpable mental state. |
Case | |
| FL - Wildlife - Chapter 68A-15. Type I Wildlife Management Areas | 68 FL ADC 68A-15.004 | Fla. Admin. Code r. 68A-15.004 | These Florida rules provide that no person shall knowingly or negligently allow any dog to pursue or molest any wildlife during any period in which the taking of such wildlife by the use of dogs is prohibited. No person shall knowingly allow a dog under their care to enter or remain upon a critical wildlife area during any period in which public access is prohibited by the order establishing such area. | Administrative | |
| Lyman v. Lanser | --- N.E.3d ----, 2024 WL 970217 (Mass. App. Ct. Mar. 7, 2024) | 103 Mass. App. Ct. 787 (2024) | This case is an appeal concerning an agreement to share possession of a dog between a couple that had ended their relationship. The lower court granted the plaintiff's motion for a preliminary injunction, the court of appeals vacated the order, then this appeal followed. The parties purchased the dog together while they were still a couple, and agreed to share the dog if they broke up. After the relationship eventually ended, the couple shared the dog on a two week alternating basis. Eventually, one party maintained custody of the dog and denied the other party access to the dog, so plaintiff filed this action for conversion and breach of contract, seeking specific performance of the custody agreement for the dog. The court here found that the dog is jointly owned property, the lack of a written contract does not bar the plaintiff from specific performance, and that the judge's order of specific performance was a suitable remedy since monetary damages would not allow plaintiff access to his shared property. Therefore, the court reversed the order vacating the preliminary injunction and denied the defendant's petition for relief from the preliminary injunction. | Case | |
| Canada - Ontario - Ontario Statutes - Ontario Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act | R.S.O. 1990, c. O.36, s. 1 - 19 |
This set of laws comprises Ontario, Canada's Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act. The object of the Society is to facilitate and provide for the prevention of cruelty to animals and their protection and relief therefrom. The laws outline the requirements for formation and operation of the Society as well as the guidelines under which members can assist animals in distress. Section 15 provides the standards of care for keeping cats or dogs for breeding or sale. 2015 amendments include the prohibition on the sale, purchase, and breeding of orcas. |
Statute |