Results
| Title | Citation | Alternate Citation | Agency Citation | Summary | Type |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Kyles v. Great Oaks Interests (unpublished) | Not Reported in Cal.Rptr.3d, 2007 WL 495897 (Cal.App. 6 Dist.) |
A California appellate court held that the plaintiffs’ nuisance claim, which was based on the defendants’ alleged failure to cease activity that resulted in the attraction of feral and domestic cats to the plaintiffs’ backyard, survived summary judgment. The plaintiffs were members of a family residing in a home located next to an apartment complex. Upon moving into the home, the family noticed that many domestic and feral cats were defecating and urinating in the plaintiffs’ yard. The plaintiffs claimed that the cats were attracted due to the failure of the neighboring apartment complex to ensure that its tenants placed lids on the trash receptacles. The appellate court partially reversed the trial court’s grant of summary judgment, holding that the defendants could, in fact, be liable under a nuisance theory for damages arising from actions that caused “the presence of [a] large number of cats on Plaintiffs’ property.” |
Case | ||
| Animal Law Index Volume 17, Part 2 |
Animal Law Review Volume 17, Issue 2 (Spring 2011)
|
Policy | |||
| MS - Wildlife, Bounty - Chapter 5. Health, Safety and Public Welfare. In General. | Miss. Code Ann. § 19-5-51 | MS ST § 19-5-51 | This Mississippi law provides that any board of supervisors may, by appropriate resolution offer a bounty not to exceed $5.00 for each nutria, beaver or bobcat destroyed, where the board determines that nutria, beaver or bobcats are in such quantities that the preservation of trees is at issue. The The Mississippi Department of Wildlife, Fisheries and Parks will issue a $5 bounty upon the presentation of the tail of any beaver. | Statute | |
| Fund for Animals v. Kempthorne | 538 F.3d 124 (C.A.2 (N.Y.),2008) | 2008 WL 3542887 |
The Fund for Animals and others brought an action challenging public resource depredation order (PRDO) issued by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service concerning a species of migratory bird known as the double-crested cormorant. On appeal, the Second Circuit affirmed the grant of summary judgment, finding that the depredation order did not violate MBTA because the Order restricts the species, locations, and means by which takings could occur, thereby restricting the discretion exercised by third parties acting under the Order. Further, the depredation order did not conflict with international treaties (specifically the Mexico Convention) because the Treaty only mandates a close season only for game birds, which the parties agree do not include cormorants. Finally, the agency's adoption of the order was not arbitrary and capricious and complied with National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). |
Case | |
| ND - Vehicle - § 39-08-19. Penalty for harassment of domestic animals | NDCC 39-08-19 | ND ST 39-08-19 | This North Dakota statute states that any person operating a motorcycle, snowmobile, or other motor vehicle who willfully harasses or frightens any domestic animal, is, upon conviction, guilty of a class B misdemeanor and is also liable for the value of the animal and exemplary damages. | Statute | |
| U.S. v. Oliver | 255 F.3d 588 (8th Cir. 2001) |
Despite delays in receiving eagle parts through the federal permit process, the court rules the BGEPA does not violate the Religious Freedom Restoration Act. There is nothing so peculiar about defendant's situation to allow a one-man exception. For further discussion on religious challenges to the BGEPA by Native Americans, see Detailed Discussion of Eagle Act . |
Case | ||
| Eastern Band Cherokee - Animal Control - Sec. 19.1, Animal Control Department | Eastern Band Cherokee, Sec. 19-19.1 |
This section of the Eastern Band Cherokee Code describes the purpose of the Tribe's Animal Control Department. The Eastern Band Cherokee Animal Control Code includes Sections 19.1 through 19.7. Each section addresses a different topic within the Tribe's animal control, ranging from administrative purposes to restrictions and regulations. |
Statute | ||
| US - AWA - Animal Welfare; Transportation of Animals on Foreign Air Carriers | 2004 WL 724205 (F.R.) | FR Doc. 04-7738 |
There has been a regulation update where a decision has been made to regulate the transportation of animals in commerce to all foreign air carriers, to or from any point within the United States. If an animal is protected by the AWA, it will continue to be protected when being transported within or from the United States. This update essentially increases the level of protection that animals protected under the AWA will receive. |
Administrative |