Results
| Title | Citation | Alternate Citation | Summary | Type |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, Inc. v. Kansas State Fair Board | 891 F.Supp.2d 1212 (D.Kan. 2012) | 2012 WL 3834740 (D.Kan. 2012) |
Upon being informed by the Kansas State Fair Board (KSFB) that it must shield a video depicting graphic images of animals being slaughtered, the People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) sought a preliminary injunction in order to show the video at the Kansas State Fair. PETA argued the shield was unconstitutional. The KSFB sought a motion to dismiss the lawsuit on the grounds of Eleventh Amendment Immunity, that PETA lacked Article Three Standing, and that the defendant was not a section 1983 person. Both motions were denied by the district court. |
Case |
| Iowa Pork Producers Association v. Bonta | Slip Copy, 2022 WL 613736 (C.D. Cal. Feb. 28, 2022) | The Iowa Pork Producers Association, an organization that represents Iowa-based industrial pig farmers, filed a lawsuit in federal district court alleging that California’s Proposition 12 is unconstitutional. Proposition 12, a ballot measure that California voters passed in 2018, mandates that pregnant pigs must be housed with a certain amount of space in order for products made from such livestock to be sold in California. Proposition 12 also bans the sale of pork meat from producers that do not comply with the housing requirements, including sales from out of state producers. Plaintiff contended that Proposition 12 violates the dormant commerce clause in that it discriminates against interstate commerce, directly regulates extraterritorial conduct, and that even if it regulates evenhandedly to effectuate a legitimate local public interest, the burden imposed on commerce is clearly excessive in relation to the putative local benefits. The court looked to the purpose of Proposition 12, which is intended to prevent animal cruelty by phasing out extreme methods of farm animal confinement, which also threaten the health and safety of California consumers, and increase the risk of foodborne illness and associated negative fiscal impacts on the state of California. The court found that this purpose is not discriminatory, and that there is no hint of economic protectionism. The court also found that there is no discriminatory effect, as the statute treats all producers the same by imposing the same requirements. The court also denied the extraterritoriality claim because Proposition 12 is not a price control or price affirmation statute and, therefore, does not directly regulate extraterritorial economic conduct. The court also found that the burden imposed on commerce was not clearly excessive in relation to the putative local benefits. The court’s precedent states that even if producers will need to adopt a more costly method of production to comply with Proposition 12, such increased costs do not constitute a substantial burden on interstate commerce, and higher costs to consumers do not qualify as a substantial burden on interstate commerce. The district court dismissed the case, holding that plaintiffs failed to raise serious questions as to the merits of the claims. | Case | |
| Monthly Publish Directions |
Monthly Publish
Archive News Items:1. Copy current news items. 2. Go to Basic Page for News Archives 3. Paste current news items below the name of the month. 4. Make the current month name in H3 and achor that month. |
Basic page | ||
| CA - Hunting Bears - Chapter 9. Bear | West's Ann. Cal. Fish & G. Code § 4750 - 4763 | CA FISH & G § 4750 - 4763 | These sections outline the requirements for taking a bear in California. It is unlawful, for example, to take any bear with a firearm, trap, or bow and arrow without first procuring a license tag authorizing the taking. These sections list the license requirements and other restrictions on the method of taking, including penalties for violations. | Statute |
| IN RE: CRAIG LESSER AND MARILYN LESSER | 52 Agric. Dec. 155 (1993) | 1993 WL 151162 (U.S.D.A.) |
Respondents, Craig and Marilyn Lesser, were respectively, president and vice-president of LSR Industries, a Wisconsin corporation that was in the business of breeding and selling rabbits to research institutions, and licensed dealers under the Animal Welfare Act. The ALJ issued an Initial Decision and Order assessing civil penalties of $9,250, and suspending Respondents' license for 30 days, after respondents interfered with APHIS inspections of their facilities and failed to maintain their facilities in accordance with the standards involving housing, sanitation, cleaning, ventilation, storage of food and bedding, and lighting. However, the Judicial Officer increased the civil penalties of $9,250 assessed by the ALJ by $500, because of sanitation and waste violations, for which the ALJ assessed no civil penalties. Since Respondents did not raise any issue before the ALJ as to whether warrantless inspections are unreasonable under the Fourth Amendment, they cannot raise the issue on appeal. The Fourth Amendment is not violated by warrantless inspections under this regulatory statute. |
Case |
| Western Watersheds Project v. Hall | Slip Copy, 2007 WL 2790404 (D.Idaho) |
Plaintiff Western Watersheds Project filed the instant action challenging the “90-Day Finding” issued by the Defendants United States Fish and Wildlife Service that denied protection of the Interior Mountain Quail as endangered or threatened under the Endangered Species Act. The Service determined that the Petition had failed to provide information demonstrating that the Interior Mountain Quail population is discrete under the ESA. The District Court stated that, in order to qualify as a DPS, a population must “be both discrete and significant.” The court found that the Service's conclusion appropriately determined that this discreteness standard was not met and it provided a rational basis for concluding the Petition had failed to provide evidence of a marked separation between the populations of the same taxon. |
Case | |
| Vill. of Orion v. Hardi | 2022 IL App (4th) 220186 | 2022 WL 17256761 (Ill.App. 4 Dist., 2022) | The plaintiff, the Village of Orion (Village), sued defendants, Patricia A. Hardi and Michael Larson, to enjoin them from keeping more than three cats in violation of a Village ordinance. After a dismissal and amended complaint by the Village, the trial court granted defendants' amended motion to dismiss, finding that the Village had previously voted to allow defendants to keep more than three cats. Here, the Village appeals this decision. By way of background, the defendants lived together in the Village since 1998, and one defendant served as the animal control officer for about 15 years. In 2013, the Village enacted an ordinance making it unlawful to keep more than three dogs or cats over the age of six months (except for licensed kennels or veterinarian clinics). At a Village board meeting in 2014, the minutes revealed that members of the board agreed to allow defendants to keep the dogs ad cats to live out their natural lifetimes. However, in 2017, the Board served a "notice to abate nuisance" for keeping more than three cats or dogs. This was followed by a complaint filed by the Village against defendants. In 2018, defendants filed a motion to dismiss alleging the three-cat limit was arbitrary and was "superseded" by a criminal action where one defendant pleaded guilty to animal cruelty, but was allowed to keep 10 cats. The trial court's order found that the Board's language at the 2014 meeting revealed "unambiguous" language that defendants could keep the cats in their possession. After remand, the Village filed its second amended complaint in 2022 and defendants against filed a motion to dismiss. After a hearing with testimony from Board members and others, the trial court found there was a motion to allow the keeping of the excess cats and this negated the ability of the Village to proceed with an ordinance violation. On appeal here, this court finds the 2014 board minutes are insufficient to support a motion to dismiss. The submission of the board minutes together with and a defense witness, followed by the Village's presentation of another board member's testimony to refute that, amounted to the court "improperly allow[ing] the parties to conduct a mini-trial on the veracity of the essential allegations of the complaint." The motion was used to attack the factual basis of the claim. Thus, the trial court's order granting the dismissal was reversed and the matter was remanded. | Case |
| Sample Table to Copy | Topic Table | |||
| South Africa - Protected Areas Act - National Environmental Management | No. 57 of 2003: National Environmental Management: Protected Areas Act, 2003. | This act is to provide for the protection and conservation of ecologically viable areas representative of South Africa’s biological diversity and its natural landscapes and seascapes; for the establishment of a national register of all national, provincial and local protected areas; for the management of those areas in accordance with national norms and standards; for intergovernmental co-operation and public consultation in matters concerning protected areas; and for matters in connection therewith. | Statute | |
| AK - Hunting - § 16.05.790. Obstruction or hindrance of lawful hunting, fishing, trapping, or viewing of fish or game | AS § 16.05.790 | AK ST § 16.05.790 | This Alaska law constitutes the state's hunter harassment law. Under the law, a person may not intentionally obstruct or hinder another person's lawful hunting, fishing, trapping, or viewing of fish and game. Only a peace officer may arrest a person for violation of this section. Exclusions include lawful competitive hunting, actions taken on private property with the consent of the landowner, and obstruction or hindrance by a person actively engaged in lawful hunting, fishing, or trapping activities. Violation is a misdemeanor with a fine of not more than $500 or imprisonment for not more than 30 days, or both. | Statute |