Results
| Title | Citation | Alternate Citation | Summary | Type |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| CA - Endangered Species - CHAPTER 1.5. ENDANGERED SPECIES | West's Ann. Cal. Fish & G. Code § 2050 - 2115.5 | CA FISH & G § 2050 - 2115.5 | The California Fish and Game Code considers that endangered and threatened species are of ecological, educational, historical, recreational, esthetic, economic, and scientific value to the people of the State of California. The State of California has legislation that allows the state to protect endangered and threatened species by acquiring land for these species to protect, restore and enhance the habitat of these species. Section 2080 prohibits the importing, taking, exporting, possessing, purchasing, or selling, any species, or any part or product thereof that is endangered or threatened. | Statute |
| New York Revised Statutes 1867: Chapter 375: Sections 1-10 | N.Y. Rev. Stat. ch. 375, §§ 1-10 (1867) | Chapter 375, entitled "An act for the more effectual prevention of animal cruelty," concerns New York's law on animal treatment for 1867. | 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 |
| F. c/ Sieli Ricci, Mauricio Rafael s/ maltrato y crueldad animal | FUNDAMENTOS DE SENTENCIA Nº1927 | "Poli" was a mutt dog that was tied to the bumper of a car by the defendant and dragged at high speed for several miles. Poli sustained severe injuries as a result of being dragged by the car. After the incident, the defendant untied her and left on the road to die. The defendant was found guilty of the crime of animal cruelty, under "ley 14.346." the judge held that this law "protects animals as subjects of rights, and the defendant's conduct was not against an object or a "thing," but rather against a subject deserving of protection." The defendant was sentenced to 6 months of suspended imprisonment for the crime of "animal mistreatment and cruelty." In addition, the judge ordered the defendant to provide food weekly for the animals in A.M.P.A.R.A (The ONG that filed the police report), with the purpose of giving the defendant the opportunity to learn firsthand that “all animals in general, and dogs, in particular, are sentient beings, that have feelings, suffer, cry, and that their right to live, freedom, and integrity has to be respected…” this, with the purpose to prevent the defendant from committing animal cruelty crimes in the future. | Case | |
| Summer Research Grant Application 2020 | Summer Research Grants: The Animal Legal & Historical Center is offering five $1,000 summer research grants for 2020. Under our grant program, students are assigned topics and they draft a paper for posting on the website along with relevant primary legal materials. The commitment is to a minimum of 100 hours to be completed before August 15, 2020. We will take applications from any student enrolled in an ABA US law school (or Canadian). Given the limited number of grants and the expected number of applications, those who have completed their second year of law school will be given a priority. See attached pdf file for more information on how to apply! | Policy | ||
| AZ - Initiatives - Proposition 201 (cockfighting) | Proposition 201 (1998) | Proposition 201 would amend state law to create the crime of cockfighting. Cockfighting would be classified as a class 5 felony, generally punishable by a possible fine of up to $150,000 and a possible prison term ranging from nine months to two years. Presence at a cockfight would be classified as a class 1 misdemeanor, generally punishable by a possible fine of up to $2,500 and a possible jail term of up to six months. This proposition would extend existing state law animal cruelty exemptions and defenses that apply to lawful hunting, ranching, farming, rodeos and related activities to also apply to cockfighting. The measure passed in 1998 with 68.1% of the vote. | Statute | |
| WI - Trust - 701.0408 Trust care for an animal | W.S.A. 701.1110; 701.0402; 701.0408 | WI ST 701.1110; 701.0402; 701.0408 | This statute represents Wisconsin's pet trust law. The former law was not a specific pet trust law, but the new law is. The new provisions allows for a trust to be created for the care of an animal alive during the settlor's lifetime. | Statute |
| UK - Fur - Fur Farming (Prohibition) Act 2000 | 2000 CHAPTER 33 |
An Act to prohibit the keeping of animals solely or primarily for slaughter for the value of their fur; to provide for the making of payments in respect of the related closure of certain businesses; and for connected purposes. |
Statute | |
| Shelby PROIE; Karen Munro; Patricia Sykes; Animal Legal Defense Fund, a non-profit corporation; and People for the Ethical Treat |
This case challenges a decision by the National Marine Fisheries Service to exclude from the listing of the Southern Resident killer whale population all captive members of that population and their progeny. By excluding the captive members from the endangered species list under the Endangered Species Act, plaintiffs contend that NMFS has failed to protect these animals from being harmed, harassed, and even killed, as otherwise prohibited under the ESA, and has acted in a manner that is arbitrary and capricious, an abuse of discretion, and not in accordance with law, within the meaning of the APA. |
Pleading | ||
| 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 |