Results
| Title | Citation | Alternate Citation | Agency Citation | Summary | Type |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| MN - Endangered Species - Natural Resources (Ch. 83A-84). Chapter 84. Department of Natural Resources | M. S. A. §§ 84.0895, 84.944, 97A.245, 97A.501 | MN ST § 84.0895, 84.944, 97A.245, 97A.501 | This statute protects endangered and threatened species in Minnesota, as defined in the statute. Under the law, a person may not take, import, transport, or sell any portion of an endangered species of wild animal or plant, or sell or possess with intent to sell an article made with any part of the skin, hide, or parts of an endangered species of wild animal or plant. Violation of the statute is a misdemeanor. | Statute | |
| Alternatives Research & Development Foundation v. Glickman | 101 F.Supp.2d 7 (D.D.C.,2000) |
In this case, the plaintiffs, a non-profit organization, a private firm and an individual, alleged that the defendants, the USDA and APHIS violated the mandate of the Animal Welfare Act (AWA) by promulgating regulations that exclude birds, mice and rats from the definition of “animal” under the Act. Defendants moved to dismiss, arguing that all three plaintiffs lack standing to bring suit. Defendants also moved to dismiss on the grounds that the exclusion of the three species is within the agency's Congressionally delegated discretion, not subject to judicial review. The court denied defendant's motion, holding that based on Lujan , defendants challenge to standing failed. Further, the AWA does not grant the USDA "unreviewable discretion" to determine what animals are covered under the AWA. |
Case | ||
| Kleppe v. New Mexico | 426 U.S. 529 (1976) |
The state of New Mexico challenged the constitutionality of the Wild Free-Roaming Horses and Burros Act after they were ordered by the U.S. government to recover several wild horses they had rounded up from public lands within their state and sold at auction in violation of the WFRHBA. The Supreme Court upheld the Act, finding it to be a valid exercise of federal power under the Article IV Property Clause of, which gave Congress the power to protect wildlife on state lands, state law notwithstanding. |
Case | ||
| HI - Importation, quarantine - Chapter 150A. Plant and Non-Domestic Animal Quarantine and Microorganism Import | H R S § 150A-5 - 15 | HI ST § 150A-5 - § 150A-15 | These laws concern the importation of animals, plants, and microorganisms into the State of Hawaii. | Statute | |
| Leger v. Louisiana Dept. of Wildlife and Fisheries | 306 So.2d 391 (La.App. 1975) |
Alex Leger instituted this action against the Louisiana Wildlife and Fisheries Commission and Burton Angelle, in his capacity as Commissioner of the Louisiana Department of Wildlife and Fisheries, to recover damages for the loss of his 1973 sweet potato crop. Leger's primary contention was that, since the State of Louisiana is the owner of all wild quadrupeds according to statute, it is legally responsible for damages done to his potato crop. The court held that the statutory language compels the conclusion that the state's ownership is in a sovereign, and not a proprietary, capacity. Thus, the nature of the ownership is as a trustee and the management duties are carried out under police power authority. The court found nothing in the cited statutes or in the law which indicates that the state has a duty to harbor wild birds or wild quadrupeds, to control their movements or to prevent them from damaging privately owned property. |
Case | ||
| US - Endangered Species - Part 402 - Interagency Cooperation | 69 FR 4557 | 50 C.F.R. § 402.01 to .34 | These ESA (Endangered Species Act) regulations outline the rules for joint or interagency actions under the Act. Specifically, the regulations state that each federal agency shall confer with the Service (USFWS) on any action which is likely to jeopardize the continued existence of any proposed species or result in the destruction or adverse modification of proposed critical habitat; confer on the coordination of biological assessments and consultations; and confer regarding Fire Plan Project rules, among other things. | Administrative | |
| IE - Welfare - Animal Health and Welfare Act 2013 | Animal Health and Welfare Act 2013 | This Ireland act deals with the health and welfare of animals by providing a number of regulations that help to protect animals. The regulations cover areas such as disease control, animal cruelty, animal health levies, and disposal of animals. In addition, the act provides for sanctions that are placed on anyone that is in violation of the act. | Statute | ||
| Levy v. Only Cremations for Pets, Inc. | 271 Cal. Rptr. 3d 250 (2020) | 57 Cal.App.5th 203 (Cal.App. 4 Dist., 2020) | This case was brought by the owners of two dogs that were cremated by a private pet cremation company, who allege the cremation service sent them the ashes of random dogs instead of those of their dogs. Plaintiffs allege breach of contract and several tort claims, including trespass to chattel and negligence. On this appeal, the judgement of the lower court was affirmed in part and reversed in part. The plaintiffs failed to establish an implied contract between them and the pet cremation company, were granted leave to amend their breach of contract complaint against the company, the other actions for breach of implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing were dismissed, and the court found that the plaintiffs adequately stated a claim for negligence. | Case | |
| LA - Exotic animals - § 2796.2. Limitation of liability for loss connected | LSA-R.S. 9:2796.2 | This Louisiana law states that no person shall have a cause of action against any nonprofit organization which operates or maintains a tax-exempt animal sanctuary for any injury, death, loss, or damage in connection with the Chimp Haven Festival, Dixie Chimps art contest, Les Boutiques de Noel, SciPort and Chimp Haven events, Run Wild and Have a Field Day, Eye-20 Art Show Gala, Krewe of Barkus and Meow Paws parade, Krewe of Centaur parade, Krewe of Highland parade, garden tour, ChimpStock, and any other educational and public awareness activities in which the organization sponsors or participates, unless the loss or damage was caused by the deliberate and wanton act or gross negligence of the organization or any officer, employee, or volunteer thereof. | Statute | ||
| Allen v. Camp | 70 So. 290 (Ala.App. 1915) | 14 Ala.App. 341 (1915) |
Defendant shot and killed Plaintiff's dog, which had bitten Defendant's daughter several days earlier, for the purpose of sending the dog's head to a laboratory for examination for rabies. The Court of Appeals of Alabama found that Plaintiff's wife's injuries were too remote to be compensable, when the wife was not home at the time of the incident and became excited and hysterical upon hearing of the incident several hours later. The Appeals Court also held that although one may protect himself or his family from injury by a dog or other animal when on his own private property or on public property, the destruction of an animal is wrongful when the danger of attack and subsequent injury by that animal no longer exists, and where the animal is not trespassing. |
Case |