Results
Displaying 6571 - 6580 of 6822
| Title | Citation | Alternate Citation | Agency Citation | Summary | Type |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Humane Soc. of the U.S. v. Hodel | 840 F.2d 45 (C.A.D.C.,1988) | 268 U.S.App.D.C. 165, 18 Envtl. L. Rep. 20,636 (C.A.D.C.,1988) |
In this appeal, the Humane Society of the United States (HSUS) challenged a series of actions by the Fish and Wildlife Service to allow hunting on some of America's national wildlife refuges. The District Court held that HSUS failed to satisfy the Supreme Court's requirements for associational standing because the 'recreational' interest of Society members was not germane to the group's self-described mission of insuring the humane treatment of animals and other wildlife. The Court of Appeals reversed the district court's finding that the Humane Society had no standing to challenge the hunt openings, and remanded the action to allow HSUS to pursue its challenge to the introduction of hunting. This Court did affirm the district court's finding on the merits that the Wildlife Service complied with NEPA when it permitted hunting at the Chincoteague preserve. Affirmed in part and reversed in part. |
Case | |
| Judgement 01413-2017-PA/TC, 2016, animals and horizontal property - Peru | 01413-2017-PA/TC | The plaintiff brought this Amparo suit against the building owners where he rented his apartment for a new regulation prohibiting pets in the building and not allowing them to take the elevator. The plaintiff claims that this recent ban on pets violates his property rights, as well as his rights to the free development of personality, freedom of movement, and the principle of non-discrimination. He also raised issues of health and safety for pets with regard to not being allowed to take the elevator. The court found in favor of the plaintiff and discussed various regulations that would serve as a compromise between the parties. Additionally, the Owner's Association was instructed to revoke any warnings or sanctions imposed on the plaintiff under the application of the regulation and to apply the ruling to guide dogs. Finally, the court determined that this ruling would constitute binding legal precedent. | Case | ||
| Commonwealth v. Waller | 58 N.E.3d 1070 (Mass. App. Ct., 2016), review denied, 476 Mass. 1102, 63 N.E.3d 387 (2016) | 90 Mass. App. Ct. 295, 2016 WL 4993441 (Mass. App. Ct., 2016) | Tasha Waller was convicted of animal cruelty for starving her dog to death. As a result of this conviction, Waller was placed on probation which prohibited her from owning animals and allowed for random searches of her property. Waller appealed this decision for the following reasons: (1) the animal cruelty statute under which she was convicted was unconstitutionally vague; (2) the expert witness testimony was improper and insufficient to support her conviction; (3) she may not as a condition of her probation be prohibited from owning animals, and the condition of probation allowing suspicions searches should be modified. The court reviewed Waller’s arguments and determined the statute was not unconstitutionally vague because it is common for animal cruelty statutes to only refer to “animals” in general and not specifically mention dogs. The court noted that dogs are commonly understood to fall within the category of animals and therefore the statute was not vague. Also, the court held that the expert witness testimony from the veterinarian was not improper because the veterinarian was capable of examining the dog and making a determination as to how the dog had died. Lastly, the court held that it was not improper to prohibit Waller from owning animals, but did agree that the searches of her property should only be warranted if authorities have reasonable suspicion to search the property. Ultimately, the court upheld Waller’s conviction and probation but modified the terms in which authorities are able to search her property. | Case | |
| Friends of Animals v. Jewell | 115 F. Supp. 3d 107 (D.D.C. 2015) | 2015 WL 4483956 (D.D.C., 2015) | Friends of Animals (FOA) filed a citizen petition under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) to get the Department of Interior to determine whether the spider tortoise and flat-tail tortoise were endangered species. After waiting two years for an answer, FOA filed suit, arguing the Department’s silence had caused the group various injuries. The district court, however, found the supposed harms did not rise to the level of “concrete and particularized” injuries in fact, and granted the Department's motion to dismiss FOA's complaint for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. | Case | |
| FL - Dangerous Dog - CHAPTER 767. DAMAGE BY DOGS. | West's F. S. A. § 767.14 | FL ST 767.14 | This Florida statute provides that nothing in the dangerous dog act limits the ability of local governments from enacting restrictions on dangerous dogs more severe than the state law, as long as the regulations are not breed-specific. | Statute | |
| AKERS v. SELLERS | 54 N.E.2d 779 (Ind.App.1944) | 114 Ind.App. 660 (1944) |
This Indiana case involves an action in replevin by John W. Akers against his former wife, Stella Sellers. The controversy at issue was ownership and possession of a Boston bull terrier dog. At the time of the divorce decree, the dog was not part of the property division and was instead left at the marriage domicile in custody of the former wife. Appellant-Akers claimed that legal title and the dog's best interests rested with him and unsuccessfully brought a suit in replevin in the lower court. On appeal, this Court held that there was no sufficient evidence to overturn the lower court's determination. The judgment was affirmed.
|
Case | |
| IN RE: JAMES AND JULIA STUEKERJUERGEN, D/B/A CORNER VIEW KENNELS. | 44 Agric. Dec. 186 (1985) | 1985 WL 62918 (U.S.D.A.) | Dog broker shipping dogs under 8 weeks old was assessed civil penalty of $7,000 and license as dealer under Animal Welfare Act was suspended for 35 days, since broker was one of largest dog brokers in state, 8-week minimum age requirement was based on finding that ability of dogs to function in adult environment was adversely affected if shipped under that age, violations were serious and flagrant in view of large number of puppies shipped on 10 different occasions during 2-month period, and broker had violated Act and standards on prior occasion resulting in 12 day license suspension. | Case | |
| Borenstein v. Animal Foundation | Not Reported in Fed. Supp., 2021 WL 3472190 (D.Nev., 2021) | No. 219CV00985APGDJA, | Plaintiff brought this lawsuit against several defendants for adopting his service animal out to new owners while he was hospitalized. The court dismissed several claims, including those against the hospital defendants, and determined that the Clark County Animal Ordinance governed the hold of the dog. Plaintiff argues that the court misapplied the law, overlooked facts, and that there was new evidence. The court claimed that the animal ordinance applied because the dog was impounded under the vehicle confinement provision, as the dog was found while she was contained in plaintiff's car. Plaintiff argues that the dog was left in the car with the air conditioning on, that the dog had not been left in the car unattended for more than 15-17 minutes, and that hospital staff were supervising the car while the dog was in it. Therefore, the dog was not in danger enough to trigger the vehicle containment provision of the animal ordinance. However, the court found that there was no error in applying the animal ordinance, since plaintiff would be checking into the hospital for an unforeseen amount of time. | Case | |
| ND - Wildlife, possession/rehabilitation - Article 48.1-09. Nontraditional Livestock. | N.D. Admin. Code § 48.1-09-01-01 - 48.1-09-06-01 | NDAC 48.1-09-01-01 - 48.1-09-06-01 | This section of North Dakota regulations concerns non-traditional livestock: any nondomestic species held in confinement or which is physically altered to limit movement and facilitate capture. The regulations describe three categories of animals: category 1 - those species generally considered domestic, or not inherently dangerous (such as turkeys, geese, ranch mink, and ducks); category 2 - certain protected species or those species that may pose health risks to humans or animals or may be environmentally hazardous (such as all deer, zebras, and nondomestic cats not listed in category 3); and category 3 - those species determined by the board to pose special concerns, including species which are inherently dangerous or environmentally hazardous (such as nondomestic swine, big cats, bears, wolves, venomous reptiles, primates, and non-domestic sheep and goats). Additionally, a person may not keep a skunk or raccoon in captivity. There are specific licensing requirements for category 2 and 3 species. The owner shall obtain a license from the board before acquiring animals classified as nontraditional livestock category 2 and category 3 species. A license or permit may not be granted by the board until it is satisfied that the provisions for housing and caring for such nontraditional livestock and for protecting the public are proper and adequate and in accordance with the standards prescribed by the board. | Administrative | |
| NV - Migratory bird - 503.620. Protection of birds included in Migratory Bird Treaty Act | N.R.S. 503.620 | NV ST 503.620 | This Nevada law makes it unlawful for any person to hunt or take any dead or alive birds, nests of birds or eggs of birds protected by the Migratory Bird Treaty Act of July 3, 1918 (16 U.S.C. §§ 703 et seq.) or accompanying regulations. | Statute |