Results
| Title | Citation | Alternate Citation | Summary | Type |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Topical Introductions | Topical introductions contain a collection of legal materials (cases, laws, and articles) for a specific topic with a short summary and detailed legal analysis. Topics range from dog issues (like dog bite laws, lost dogs, custody issues involving pets in divorce) to complex federal laws such as the U.S. Endangered Species Act or the Animal Welfare Act. | Basic page | ||
| Canada - Northwest Territories Statutes/Nunavut - Dog Act | R.S.N.W.T. 1988, c. D-7, s. 1 | This set of laws comprises the Northwest Territories Dog Act. Under the Act, owners may not allow their dogs to run loose and must provide them with sufficient food and water. Further, the law provides that no person shall punish or abuse a dog in a manner or to an extent that is cruel or unnecessary or drive a dog or dog team on a sidewalk situated on the street or road of a settlement. The law also sets forth the procedure for the impoundment and release of dogs. For the latest version of this Act, see the pdf. | Statute | |
| Viilo v. Eyre | 547 F.3d 707 (C.A.7 (Wis.),2008) | 2008 WL 4694917 |
Virginia Viilo sued the City of Milwaukee and two of its police officers under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 after an officer shot and killed her dog 'Bubba.' The district court denied the defendants' motion for summary judgment on the basis of qualified immunity and the defendants took an interlocutory appeal challenging this denial. The court found that defendants' interjection of factual disputes deprived the court of jurisdiction. The court further held that it is a violation of the Fourth Amendment for a police officer to shoot and kill a companion dog that poses no imminent danger while the dog’s owner is present and trying to assert custody over her pet. |
Case |
| Anderson v. Evans | 314 F.3d 1006 (9th Cir. 2002) | 55 ERC 1481, 2 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 12,197, 2002 Daily Journal D.A.R. 14,605 |
Concerned citizens and animal conservation groups brought an action against United States government, challenging the government's approval of quota for whale hunting by Makah Indian Tribe located in Washington state. On appeal by the plaintiffs, the Court of Appeals held that the failure of the government to prepare an Environmental Impact Statement before approving a whale quota for the Makah Tribe violated National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). The court also found that the Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA) applied to tribe's proposed whale hunt, as the proposed whale takings were not excluded by the treaty with the tribe. |
Case |
| Bhogaita v. Altamonte Heights Condominium Assn. | 765 F.3d 1277 (11th Cir., 2014) | 2014 WL 4215853 (11th Cir., 2014) | Appellee Ajit Bhogaita, who suffers from post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), filed suit against Appellant Altamonte Heights Condominium Association, Inc. ("Association") for violating the disability provisions of the Federal and Florida Fair Housing Acts, 42 U.S.C. § 3604(f)(3)(b) (“FHA”) and the Florida Fair Housing Act, when it enforced its pet weight policy and demanded Bhogaita remove his emotional support dog from his condominium. The jury awarded Bhogaita $5,000 in damages, and the district court awarded Bhogaita more than $100,000 in attorneys' fees. This court affirmed that decision finding that there was evidence that the Association constructively denied appellee's requested accommodation. In fact, the court opined, "Neither Bhogaita's silence in the face of requests for information the Association already had nor his failure to provide information irrelevant to the Association's determination can support an inference that the Association's delay reflected an attempt at meaningful review." | Case |
| Multilateral Conservation of Polar Bears Agreement done at Oslo November 15, 1973 |
This 1973 agreement between the governments of Canada, Denmark, Norway, USSR, and the United States recognizes the responsibilities of the circumpolar countries for coordination of actions to protect polar bears. The agreement commits the signatories to manage polar bear populations in accordance with sound conservation practices; prohibits hunting, killing, and capturing bears except for limited purposes and by limited methods, and commits all parties to protect the ecosystems of polar bears, especially denning and feeding areas and migration corridors. The agreement was signed by the United States on November 15, 1973, ratified on September 30, 1976, and entered into force in this country on November 1, 1976. |
Treaty | ||
| Index for Animal Law Volume 7 |
Animal Law, Volume 7 (2001)Introduction
1 |
Policy | ||
| People v. Bergen | 883 P.2d 532 (Col. Ct. App. Div. III 1994) |
Defendant, a journalist, attempted to film a dogfight for an investigative story on dogfighting following the passage of a Denver ordinance forbidding the ownership of bull terriers (pitbulls). Defendant videotaped two separate fights and dogs "training" by running on treadmills. After the story aired, public outcry lead to a police investigation as to the source of the dogfighting footage, which lead to the arrest of the defendant and her cameramen for dogfighting and perjury.
|
Case | |
| NM - Pigs, feral - § 77-18-6. Feral hogs; prohibition; penalty | NMSA 1978, § 77-18-6 | NM ST § 77-18-6 | This New Mexico law prohibits the importation, transportation, holding for breeding, releasing, or selling of a sell a live feral hog or the operation of a commercial feral hog hunting enterprise. Any person who violates this section is guilty of a misdemeanor and shall be punished by a fine of not more than one thousand dollars ($1,000) or by imprisonment for a definite term of less than one year or both. | Statute |
| Newton County Wildlife Ass'n v. U.S. Forest Service | 113 F.3d 110 (8th Cir. 1997) | 44 ERC 201728, Envtl. L. Rep. 20, 020 | Newton County Wildlife Association sued the United States Forest Service seeking judicial review of four timber sales in the Ozark National Forest. The Wildlife Association filed sequential motions to preliminarily enjoin the sales as violative of the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act (WSRA) and the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA). The district court1 separately denied each motion, and the Wildlife Association separately appealed those orders. The Court held that because the Forest Service may limit WSRA plans to lands lying within designated river segments, failure to timely prepare the Plans cannot be a basis for enjoining timber sales on lands lying outside any designated area. With respect to the MBTA, the Court held that "it would stretch this 1918 statute far beyond the bounds of reason to construe it as an absolute criminal prohibition on conduct, such as timber harvesting, that indirectly results in the death of migratory birds." Therefore, the Court affirmed the district court's denial of injunctive relief. | Case |