Results
| Title | Citation | Alternate Citation | Agency Citation | Summary | Type | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| US - Service Animals - Subpart E. Accessibility of Aircraft and Service Animals on Aircraft | 14 C.F.R. § 382.72 - .80 | This subpart concerns accessibility of aircraft and service animals. Per section 382.72, airlines must allow a service animal to accompany a passenger with a disability. They must not deny transportation to a service animal based on the animal's breed or type or on the basis that its carriage may offend or annoy carrier personnel or persons traveling on the aircraft. The next section describes the process for determining that an animal is service animal. If a passenger with a disability seeks to travel with a service animal, airlines may require the passenger to provide them, as a condition of permitting the service animal to travel in the cabin, a current completed U.S. Department of Transportation Service Animal Air Transportation Form. | Administrative | ||||||
| CA - Trapping - Chapter 2. Fur-Bearing Mammals Article 2. Fur Dealer License | West's Ann. Cal. Fish & G. Code § 4030 - 4043 (repealed) | CA FISH & G § 4030 - 4043 | Note: §§ 4030 to 4043. Repealed by Stats.2019, c. 216 (A.B.273), § 11, eff. Jan. 1, 2020. Formerly, these provisions outline the requirements for fur dealers. Every person engaging in the business of buying, selling, trading or dealing in raw furs of fur-bearing mammals or nongame mammals is a fur dealer and shall procure a fur dealer license. An exception is made for those dealers that trap and sell raw furs which he has lawfully taken, or a domesticated game breeder selling raw furs of animals which he has raised. Fur dealers are required to maintain complete recordings for all of the furs they trade or sell and are prohibited from purchasing raw fur of any fur-bearing mammal or nongame mammal from any person who does not hold a valid trapping license, fur dealer license, or fur agent license. | Statute | |||||
| ND - Initiatives - Initiated Constitutional Measure 3 (right to farm) | Measure 3 (2012) | This measure proposed in the 2012 stated: The right of farmers and ranchers to engage in modern farming and ranching practices shall be forever guaranteed in this state. No law shall be enacted which abridges the right of farmers and ranchers to employ agricultural technology, modern livestock production and ranching practices. It passed by 66.9% of voters. | Statute | ||||||
| Center for Biological Diversity v. Norton | 240 F.Supp.2d 1090 (D.Ariz. 2003) |
This lawsuit arises out of the Fish and Wildlife Service's ("FWS") designation of approximately 30% of the critical habitat originally proposed for the Mexican spotted owl (Strix occidentalis lucida ) under the Endangered Species Act ("ESA"). In analyzing the FWS's decision under both the standard of review for the APA and the deference afforded by the Chevron standard, the court found that the FWS's interpretation of "critical habitat" was "nonsensical." It is not determinative whether the habitat requires special management, but, pursuant to the ESA, it is whether the habitat is "essential to the conservation of the species" and special management of that habitat is possibly necessary. Thus, defendant's interpretation of the ESA received no deference by the court and the court found defendant's application of the ESA unlawful, as Defendant and FWS have been repeatedly told by federal courts that the existence of other habitat protections does not relieve Defendant from designating critical habitat. The court found that the FWS's Final Rule violated both the ESA and the APA in implementing its regulations. |
Case | ||||||
| Constitutional Animal Law |
Constitutional Animal Law, Olivier Le Bot (2023)Constitutional animal law has become increasingly important in recent years. |
Policy | |||||||
| DC - Breeder - Subchapter II. Commercial Licensing Requirement. | DC CODE § 8-1821.01 - .02 | DC ST § 8-1821.01 - .02 | These D.C. laws require that the Mayor establish licensure requirements for commercial animal breeders in the District of Columbia. The rules must contain requirements as to licensing fees, standards of care, and facility inspection. For the purposes of this section, the term “commercial animal breeder” means any person, firm, organization, or corporation engaged in the operation of breeding and raising more than 25 animals per year for sale or in return for consideration. | Statute | |||||
| Katsaris v. Cook | 225 Cal.Rptr. 531 (Cal.App. 1 Dist., 1986) |
Plaintiff's neighbor, a livestock rancher, shot plaintiff's sheepdogs after they escaped and trespassed on his property. As a matter of first impression, the court construed the California Food and Agricultural Code provision that allows one to kill a dog that enters an enclosed or unenclosed livestock confinement area with threat of civil or criminal penalty. The court affirmed defendant's motion with regard to the code provision, finding it gave them a privilege to kill the trespassing dogs. Further, the court found defendants owed no duty to plaintiff thereby denying the claim for negligent infliction of emotional distress as a result of negligence in supervising the ranchhand who killed the dogs. With regard to the intentional infliction of emotional distress claim, plaintiffs cite the manner in which the dogs were killed and then dumped in a ditch and the fact defendant denied knowing the fate of the dogs. Relying on the "extreme and outrageous conduct" test, the court held that the defendant's conduct did not fall within the statutory privilege and remanded the issue to the trial court for consideration. |
Case | ||||||
| Derecho Animal Volume 13 No. 1 |
|
Policy | |||||||
| US - Civil Rights - Civil Action for Deprivation of Civil Rights | 42 U.S.C.A. 1983 | This law is the primary means by which a person can bring a violation of a constitutional right. To prevail in a claim under section 1983, the plaintiff must meet two elements: a person subjected the plaintiff to conduct that occurred under color of state law, and this conduct deprived the plaintiff of rights, privileges, or immunities guaranteed under federal law or the U.S. Constitution. The statute provides immunity for persons operating under "color of law" acting in their official capacities. | Statute |
