Results
| Title | Citation | Alternate Citation | Agency Citation | Summary | Type |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| NY - Horse Racing - Section 4002.23. License qualifications for private trainer | 9 NY ADC 4002.23 | 9 NYCRR 4002.23 | A private trainer's license may be issued to an applicant who has an ownership or lease interest in a horse exceeding 50 percent if that person has been a licensed owner for one year, has three years of experience with Thoroughbred racehorses, and passes written and practical exams. | Administrative | |
| U.S. v. 3,210 crusted sides of Caiman crocodilus yacare | 636 F.Supp. 1281 (S.D. Fla. 1986) |
The plaintiff, the United States of America, seeks forfeiture of the defendant, 10,870 crusted sides of Caiman crocodilus yacare, an endangered species of wildlife (hides) transported from Bolivia to the U.S. in violation of the Lacey Act, among other statutes. The court found that the testimony concerning the shrinkage of the crocodile hides during tanning did not meet the buren of the claimed owners showing by a preponderance of the evidence that the hides, which were shipped from Bolivia under the size limit imposed by Bolivian law, were not subject to the forfeiture provisions of the Lacey Act, 16 U.S.C. § 3374(a)(1) (1985). The provision of the Lacey Act at issue prohibits the interstate or foreign commerce of any wildlife taken in violation of any foreign law. |
Case | ||
| Barrington v. Colbert | CO/1273/97 |
A net was placed over one opening of a land drain and a terrier dog sent into the other entrance with the objective of prompting a fox to run into the net. Magistrates acquitted the defendants of doing an act causing unnecessary suffering to the fox contrary to the Protection of Animals Act 1911, s 1(1)(a). The Divisional Court dismissed the prosecutor's appeal, holding that, applying Rowley v Murphy [1964] 2 QB 43, the fox was not a "captive animal" within the meaning of s 15(c) of the 1911 Act, mere confinement not being sufficient, and was therefore outside the protection of that Act. |
Case | ||
| Revista Brasileira de Direito Animal Volume 11 |
Sumário / Table of Contents
|
Policy | |||
| CO - Rehabilitation, wildlife - Chapter 14. Wildlife Rehabilitation. | 2 CO ADC 406-14 | 2 CCR 406-14:1400 to 1407 | This set of Colorado rules concerns wildlife rehabilitation licensing. Requirements for wildlife holding enclosures are outlined. The care, treatment, and disposition of wildlife requirements are detailed as well as provisions for releasing wildlife. | Administrative | |
| Hendrickson v. Tender Care Animal Hospital Corporation | 312 P.3d 52 (2013) | 176 Wash. App. 757 (2013) | Dog owner brought claims of professional negligence, negligent misrepresentation, lack of informed consent, reckless breach of a bailment contract, and emotional distress after her golder retriever, Bear, died following a routine neutering procedure. After the surgery, Bear was bloated and vomiting, and the owner alleged that the animal hospital failed to properly inform her of his condition. As a result, the owner treated Bear with a homeopathic remedy instead of the prescription medication given to her by the hospital and Bear's condition worsened and eventually caused his death. | Case | |
| State v. Schuler (Unpublished) | 1997 WL 76337 (Unpub. Minn. 1997) |
This Minnesota lawsuit arose from the enforcement of a Little Canada ordinance prohibiting the keeping of more than three adult dogs in any residential dwelling within the city's residentially zoned districts. In reviewing a challenge to the law, the court first noted that a city's police power allows it both to regulate the keeping of animals, and to define nuisances and provide for their abatement. Further, municipal ordinances are presumptively constitutional and the burden rests on the party challenging it. Here, Schuler failed to offer evidence that regulating the number of dogs per household was unrelated to controlling the problems of dog noise and odor as they affect the health and general welfare of the community. |
Case | ||
| VA - Nuisance animals - § 29.1-517. Trapping and shooting of fur-bearing animals during closed season | VA Code Ann. § 29.1-517 | VA ST § 29.1-517 | This Virginia law states that a landowner may shoot fur-bearing animals upon his own land during closed season when these animals are causing damage to crops or property, or are posing a threat to human health or safety, or are otherwise causing a nuisance. | Statute | |
| Alternatives Research & Development Foundation v. Glickman | 101 F.Supp.2d 7 (D.D.C.,2000) |
In this case, the plaintiffs, a non-profit organization, a private firm and an individual, alleged that the defendants, the USDA and APHIS violated the mandate of the Animal Welfare Act (AWA) by promulgating regulations that exclude birds, mice and rats from the definition of “animal” under the Act. Defendants moved to dismiss, arguing that all three plaintiffs lack standing to bring suit. Defendants also moved to dismiss on the grounds that the exclusion of the three species is within the agency's Congressionally delegated discretion, not subject to judicial review. The court denied defendant's motion, holding that based on Lujan , defendants challenge to standing failed. Further, the AWA does not grant the USDA "unreviewable discretion" to determine what animals are covered under the AWA. |
Case | ||
| People v. Tinsdale | 10 Abbott's Prac. Rept. (New) 374 (N.Y. 1868) |
This case represents one of the first prosecutions by Mr. Bergh of the ASPCA under the new New York anti-cruelty law. That this case dealt with the issue of overloading a horse car is appropriate as it was one of the most visible examples of animal abuse of the time. This case establishes the legal proposition that the conductor and driver of a horse car will be liable for violations of the law regardless of company policy or orders.Discussed in Favre, History of Cruelty |
Case |