Results
| Title | Citation | Alternate Citation | Agency Citation | Summary | Type |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Missouri ex rel. Koster v. Harris | 847 F.3d 646 (9th Cir. 2017) | After California passed Proposition 2 to mandate more humane housing standards for egg laying hens, the state then passed Assembly Bill 1437 to extend the applicability of Proposition 2’s standards to out of state egg producers. In response, six states, Missouri, Nebraska, Oklahoma, Alabama, Kentucky, and Iowa, filed suit against the Attorney General of California seeking to block enforcement of the regulations before they went into effect. The states asserted parens patriae standing on behalf of the egg producers within their borders that would face increasing production costs as a result of compliance with the requirements of Proposition 2 and Assembly Bill 1437. The district court dismissed the case with prejudice, finding that plaintiffs lacked standing. On appeal, the court found that plaintiffs failed to establish an interest apart from those of private egg producers within their borders, and acknowledged that those private egg producers could file a claim themselves. The allegations about the potential economic impact of the regulations were also found to be speculative, since the regulations had not yet gone into effect. Lastly, the court held that the regulations themselves are nondiscriminatory, since they apply to in state egg producers as well. However, because plaintiffs could file an amended complaint after the regulations go into effect that may be sufficient to establish standing, the case was dismissed without prejudice. | Case | ||
| City of Toledo, Appellee v. Paul Tellings, Appellant |
This Ohio case concerns a Toledo ordinance that limited the ownership of Pit Bull dogs to only one dog per household (respondent had three pit bulls). Essentially, the ordinance classifies a Pit Bull as a “vicious dog” under the vicious dog ordinance even if the dog has not engaged in aggressive or vicious behavior. The Court of Appeals for the Sixth Appellate District found that the ordinance as written was constitutionally vague. The Supreme Court overturned that decision in 2007, finding that the state and the city have a legitimate interest in protecting citizens against unsafe conditions caused by pit bulls. |
Pleading | |||
| Modesto Irr. Dist. v. Gutierrez | 619 F.3d 1024 (C.A.9 (Cal.), 2010) | 2010 WL 3274499 (C.A.9 (Cal.)) |
Plaintiffs, Modesto Irrigation District and other irrigation and water districts, contended that, in listing the steelhead—a type of Pacific salmon—as "threatened" under the ESA, the National Marine Fisheries Service violated both the ESA and APA. More specifically, Plaintiffs averred that listing the steelhead as a distinct species under the ESA violated the Act because the steelhead and rainbow trout interbreed. The Ninth Circuit disagreed and affirmed the ruling of the District Court. The court noted that while the steelhead and rainbow trout do interbreed, Congress, in enacting the ESA, did not intend to create a rigid limitation on an agency’s discretion to define the "statutorily undefined concept" of a "distinct population segment" ("DPS"). |
Case | |
| JONES v. ST. LOUIS, I. M. & S. RY. CO. | 13 S.W. 416 (Ark.1890) | 53 Ark. 27 (1890); 22 Am.St.Rep. 175 |
This involved an action by R. D. Jones against the St. Louis, Iron Mountain & Southern Railway Company, claiming $2,000 damages,--$1,000 for the value of a colt killed by defendant's train, and $1,000 damages for not posting notice of the killing as required by the statute. The court looked at areas in the market outside of the locality since local information on the colt’s market value was not available. The court affirmed the lower court's judgment due to a lack in plaintiff's proofs at trial. |
Case | |
| Mexico Convention for the Protection of Migratory Birds and Game Mammals | TS 912 | Per Digest of Federal Resource Laws of Interest to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service: This 1936 treaty adopted a system for the protection of certain migratory birds in the United States and Mexico. Allows, under regulation, the rational use of certain migratory birds. Provides for enactment of laws and regulations to protect birds by establishment of closed seasons and refuge zones. Prohibits killing of insectivorous birds, except under permit when harmful to agriculture. Provides for enactment of regulations on transportation of game mammals across the United States-Mexican border. Signed in Mexico City, February 7, 1936, this treaty was ratified by the President of the United States on October 8, 1936, and documents of ratification were exchanged on March 15, 1937, in Washington, D.C. United States implementation of the treaty was accomplished by amending the Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918 (16 U.S.C. 703-711; 40 Stat. 755) on June 20, 1936 (49 Stat. 1556). The treaty was amended March 10, 1972 (23 U.S.T. 260; T.I.A.S. 7302) to add 32 additional families of birds including eagles, hawks, owls, and Corvidae family. The treaty was amended in 1995 to establish a legal framework for the subsistence take of birds in Alaska and northern Canada by Alaska Natives and Aboriginal people in Canada. The Senate provided its advice and consent to the amendments in November, 1997. The treaty was formally implemented in 1999. | Treaty | ||
| Loy v. Kenney | 85 Cal. App. 5th 403, 301 Cal. Rptr. 3d 352 (2022), reh'g denied (Dec. 2, 2022) | The background of the case involves buyers who sued alleged sellers of dogs for falsely advertising their pets as healthy when they were actually sick and died soon after. The buyers claimed that this violated the Consumers Legal Remedies Act. The Superior Court in Los Angeles County granted the buyers' motion for a preliminary injunction, which prevented the sellers from selling or advertising dogs. However, the sellers appealed this decision. The sellers' main issue at the the Court of Appeal was whether there was sufficient evidence to support the claim that the buyers purchased the puppies in question from the sellers. The court found relying on the buyers' declarations to establish the sellers' identities did not result in any harm. In addition, the buyers had provided adequate evidence to support their allegations that the puppies had been dyed brown. The court found the objections raised by the sellers regarding the evidentiary foundations for allegations relating to the dogs' ages, vaccinations, and causes of death were not relevant to the preliminary injunction. Substantial evidence existed to suggest that the buyers would likely succeed in their claim against the sellers and the balance of harms favored granting the preliminary injunction. Lastly, the sellers' persistence in their routine indicated that the public interest favored the grant of the preliminary injunction. Therefore, the Court of Appeal affirmed the decision. | Case | ||
| MO - Independence - Breed - Sec. 3.03.006. Keeping of Pit Bulls Prohibited | INDEPENDENCE, MO. MUNICIPAL CODE § 3.03.006 (2006) |
The municipal code of Independence, Missouri makes it unlawful to own, possess, transport, or sell any pit bull with exceptions. However, the pit bull ban does not apply to registered show dogs that meet certain requirements or dogs whose owners have received a pit bull license on or before the date the ordinance was enacted. Requirements for ownership include an owner who is at least 18 years old, sterilization of the dog, and liability insurance of at least $300,000. Violations may result in a fine of $500, 60 days in jail, and immediate sterilization of the dog, impoundment, and disposal. |
Local Ordinance | ||
| Majors v. Housing Authority of the County of DeKalb Georgia | 652 F.2d 454 (5th Cir. 1981) |
Tenant had a history of mental illness and kept a dog in her apartment despite a "no pets" policy. The housing authority refused to waive the "no pets" policy and brought an eviction proceeding. Tenant filed a complaint in federal district court alleging violation of Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act for failure to waive the "no pets" policy as a reasonable accommodation for her disability. The district court granted the housing authority's motion for summary judgment and the tenant appealed. The court of appeals held that the housing authority deprived the tenant of the benefits of the housing program by enforcing the no pets rule, reasoning that waiving the no pets rule would allow the tenant to fully enjoy the benefits of the program and would place no undue burdens on the housing authority. |
Case | ||
| KY -Wills and Trusts - 386B.4-080 Trust for care of animal | KRS § 386B.4-020; 386B.4-080 | KY ST § 386B.4-020; 386B.4-080 | A trust may be created to provide for the care of an animal alive during the settlor's lifetime. The trust terminates on the death of the animal or, if the trust was created to provide for the care of more than one (1) animal alive during the settlor's lifetime, on the death of the last surviving animal. | Statute | |
| Dixon v. City of Woodland | This is an order for a settlment regarding police shooting a dog. | Pleading |