Results
| Title | Citation | Alternate Citation | Agency Citation | Summary | Type |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ID - Endangered Species - Chapter 24. Species Conservation- Chapter 26. Fish and Game | I.C. § 36-2401 - 2405, 36–1101 | ID ST § 36-2401 - 2405, § 36–1101 | This Idaho law sets out the definitions related to state endangered species laws. It also establishes a delisting advisory team that is responsible for reviewing data related to state species proposed for delisting by the federal government. This team also submits management plans to the state fish and wildlife department. | Statute | |
| CA - Euthanasia - § 597u. Animals; prohibited killing methods | West's Ann. Cal. Penal Code § 597u | CA PENAL § 597u | This statute prohibits the use by any person of carbon monoxide gas or an intracardiac injection of a euthanasia agent on a conscious animal to kill an animal. | Statute | |
| Natural Resources Defense Council v. Rodgers | 381 F.Supp.2d 1212 (2005, E.D.Cal.) | 2005 WL 1799398 (E.D.Cal.) |
An environmental organization brought an action against United States Bureau of Reclamation, the National Marine Fisheries Service, and the Fish and Wildlife Service, alleging that agencies failed to examine critical issues in biological opinions (BiOps) before executing water contracts for delivery of California Water Project water to irrigation and water districts. On a cross motion for summary judgment, the District Court held that the agencies failed to conduct adequate adverse modification analyses, failed to conduct adequate jeopardy analyses, and that the conduct of BOR in relying on the issued BiOps was arbitrary and capricious. |
Case | |
| Metal dirty cage with a night monkey in it. | Slideshow Images | ||||
| US - Meat Inspection - Labeling (Historical) | 9 C.F.R. 317 | These former Federal Meat Inspection Act regulations detail the law surrounding labeling, marking, and containing packaged food prior to 2014. Read an Animal Welfare Institute petition to amend section 317.4 of labeling regulations under the Federal Meat Inspection Act (FMIA). The new regulations went into effect in 2014. | Administrative | ||
| US - Trade - Tariff Act of 1930 | 19 USCA § 1481 | This federal law outlines the requirements for importation invoices. | Statute | ||
| US - Permits - Subpart C. Permit Administration. § 13.29 Review procedures. | 54 FR 38149, Sept. 14, 1989 | 50 C.F.R. § 13.29 | This regulation outlines the procedure to seek administrative review of the denial for a permit to possess or otherwise take wildlife or plants. | Administrative | |
| AR - Ordinances - § 14-54-1102. Dogs running astray. | A.C.A. § 14-54-1102 | AR ST § 14-54-1102 | This Arkansas statute provides that municipal corporations have the power to prevent the running at large of dogs and the injuries and annoyances associated with them. Further, this statute allows municipalities to authorize the destruction or impoundment of dogs if found in violation of ordinance. However, prior to destroying the dog, the municipality shall give the dog's owner at least five (5) days' notice of the date of the proposed destruction of the dog by certified mail if the dog carries the owner's address. | Statute | |
| Yuzon v. Collins | 10 Cal.Rptr.3d 18 (Cal.App. 2 Dist.,2004) | 116 Cal.App.4th 149, 4 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 1702, 2004 Daily Journal D.A.R. 2535 |
In this California case, a dog bite victim sued a landlord, alleging premises liability in landlord's failure to guard or warn against tenants' dangerous dog. On appeal from an order of summary judgment in favor of the landlords, the Court of Appeal held that the landlord owed no duty of care, as he had no actual knowledge of dog's dangerous propensities and an expert witness's declaration that the landlord should have known of the dog's vicious propensities was insufficient to warrant reconsideration of summary judgment ruling. The landlord's knowledge that tenants may have a dog because it is allowed through a provision in the lease is insufficient to impute liability where the landlord has no knowledge of any previous attacks or incidents. |
Case | |
| People for Ethical Treatment of Animals v. Bd. of Supervisors of Louisiana State Univ. | 376 So. 3d 178, writ granted sub nom. People for Ethical Treatment of Animals v. Bd. of Supervisors of Louisiana State Univ. (La. App. 1 Cir. 9/19/23) | 2022-0976 (La. App. 1 Cir. 9/19/23); 2023 WL 6119352 (La.App. 1 Cir., 2023) | Plaintiff-appellee, People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA), began this case by issuing eight public records requests to defendant-appellant Louisiana State University (LSU). PETA made these records seeking veterinary care and disposition records for birds used in LSU’s laboratories. For the first seven of these requests, LSU did not produce the records, so PETA filed a petition for a writ of mandamus, declaratory judgment, and injunctive relief pursuant to the Public Records Law. LSU denied PETA’s allegations and did not produce the records, so PETA made an eighth records request, which LSU responded to with an assertion that the requested records were exempt from disclosure. After a hearing, the trial court issued an oral ruling in favor of PETA and granted some of the records that PETA requested. LSU appealed. On appeal, the court considered whether the records sought by PETA were covered under the Public Records Law. The court first found that LSU qualifies as a research facility under the Animal Welfare Act, and needs to comply with federal law and maintain and produce records relating to research animals, so long as the records being sought would not be unduly burdensome to produce. The court held that the portions of the judgment ordering LSU to produce veterinary daily observation reports, veterinary daily health check records, and other veterinary records were affirmed. However, some of the information sought, including private communications between LSU employees, trapping records, and some videographic records, were considered unduly burdensome to compel LSU to produce. The court also amended a portion of one of the requests to make it more specific and narrow the documentation that LSU would need to produce. Accordingly, the court affirmed in part, reversed in part, amended in part, and reversed in part. | Case |