Results

Displaying 61 - 70 of 6637
Title Citation Alternate Citation Summary Type
Animal Law in Australia

 

Policy
CA - Burro - § 4600. Killing or capturing undomesticated burro; prima facie evidence West's Ann. Cal. Fish & G. Code § 4600 CA FISH & G § 4600 This section makes it unlawful to kill, wound, capture, or have in possession any undomesticated burro. An undomesticated burro is a wild burro or a burro which has not been tamed or domesticated for a period of three years after its capture. Statute
IN RE: TERRY LEE HARRISON AND PAMELA SUE HARRISON, RESPONDENTS 51 Agric. Dec. 234 (1992) 1992 WL 17132 (U.S.D.A.) Willful violation is defined as one where violator either intentionally does act which is prohibited, irrespective of evil motive or reliance on erroneous advice, or acts with careless disregard of statutory requirements. Case
Florida Home Builders Ass'n v. Norton 496 F.Supp.2d 1330 (M.D.Fla., 2007) 2007 WL 2172785 (M.D.Fla.)

The plaintiffs charge in that the Secretary of the Interior, in contravention of statutory duty, has failed to conduct the nondiscretionary, five-year status reviews of species listed as endangered or threatened in the Federal Register. Plaintiff seeks an order declaring that Defendants have violated the Endangered Species Act and that the failure to conduct the status reviews constitutes agency action “unlawfully withheld” in violation of the Administrative Procedure Act. Defendants argue that their failure to conduct the mandatory status reviews is not an agency action that is reviewable under the APA. Defendants therefore assert that the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over Plaintiff's suit to compel agency action to the extent that it arises under the APA. Although not addressed by Defendants and although there is little authority on the issue, Defendants' failure to comply with a mandatory duty falls within the first category of actions reviewable under the APA as an agency action, or inaction, “made reviewable by statute” because the ESA explicitly “provides a private right of action." Defendants assert that budgetary and resource constraints precluded the Secretary from fulfilling the obligation imposed by Congress. However, the court stated that defendants ". . . should take up such constraints with Congress rather than let mandatory deadlines expire with inaction."

Case
LA - Research - LSA-R.S. 51:771 LSA-R.S. 51:771 - 777 This Louisiana set of laws, enacted in 2022, makes it unlawful for a manufacturer to sell or offer for sale in this state a cosmetic that utilized cosmetic animal testing during the development or manufacture of the cosmetic, if the cosmetic animal testing was conducted by the manufacturer, any supplier of the manufacturer, or any person or business hired or contracted by the manufacturer. Limited exemptions exist. A manufacturer that sells or offers for sale a cosmetic in violation commits a civil violation punishable by a fine of not more than $1,000 for the first day of each violation and an additional fine of $500 for each day that each violation continues. Statute
SD - Facility dog - 23A-24-10. Certified therapeutic dogs--Definitions S D C L § 23A-24-10 - 12 SD ST § 23A-24-10 - 12 In 2020, South Dakota enacted provisions for the use of "certified therapeutic dogs" for certain witnesses (children or those with developmental disabilities as defined in the law) in criminal proceedings. A certified therapeutic dog is defined as a dog that has received the requisite training or certification and is registered with Therapy Dogs Incorporated, Therapy Dogs International, Assistance Dogs International, or an equivalent organization to perform the duties associated with therapy dogs in places such as hospitals, nursing homes, and other facilities where the emotional benefits of therapy dogs are recognized. Before using the dog, the party desiring to utilize the presence of a certified therapeutic dog must file a motion containing listed information outside the presence of the jury. A handler may accompany the dog and sit behind or next to the witness stand. Statute
DE - Property - § 3050F. Dogs deemed personal property; theft; penalty 16 Del.C. § 3050F DE ST TI 16 § 3050F Dogs are considered personal property in Delaware. Statute
IA - Veterinary Liens - Chapter 581. Veterinarian's Lien I. C. A. § 581.1 - 4 IA ST § 581.1 - 4 This section of Iowa laws relates to veterinary liens related to treatment of livestock. A veterinarian shall have an agricultural lien as provided in section 554.9102 for the actual and reasonable value of treating livestock, including the cost of any product used and the actual and reasonable value of any professional service rendered by the veterinarian. In order to perfect the lien, the veterinarian must file a financing statement in the office of the secretary of state as provided. “Livestock” means an animal belonging to the bovine, caprine, equine, ovine, or porcine species, ostriches, rheas, emus, poultry, or fish or shellfish. Statute
US - Divorce/Custody - Uniform Marriage & Divorce Act. Section 307. Part III Dissolution. Section 307 Disposition of Property. ULA Marr & Divorce s 307 Uniform act created to address division of marital property upon divorce in equitable distribution jurisdiction. Two alternatives are given, directing equitable apportionment in one and division in just proportions in the other. Statute
WILDEARTH GUARDIANS vs. NATIONAL PARK SERVICE 703 F.3d 1178 (10th Cir. Ct. App.,2013) 2013 WL 93169 (10th Cir. Ct. App.,2013)

In this case, the WildEarth Guardians brought a suit against the National Park Service for violating the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and the Rocky Mountain National Park Enabling Act (RMNP)'s ban on hunting. The district court and the appeals court, however, held that the NPS did not violate NEPA because the agency articulated reasons for excluding the natural wolf alternative from its Environmental Impact Statement. Additionally, since the National Park Service Organic Act (NPSOA)'s detrimental animal exception and the RMNP's dangerous animal exception apply to the prohibition on killing, capturing, or wounding—not the prohibition on hunting, the use of volunteers to cull the park’s elk population did not violate the RMNP or the NPSOA.  

Case

Pages