Results
| Title | Citation | Alternate Citation | Summary | Type |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| ME - Transport - § 2087. Transporting dogs in open vehicle regulated | 29-A M. R. S. A. § 2087 | ME ST T. 29-A § 2087 | This Maine law regulates the transporting of dogs in open vehicles (like pick-up trucks or convertibles). Under the law, a person driving an open vehicle may not transport a dog in the open portion of that vehicle on a public way unless the dog is protected in a manner that prevents the dog from falling or jumping or being thrown from the vehicle. The law excludes transportation of a dog by a farmer engaged in agricultural activities involving the dog or a hunting dog that is between transported between hunting sites by a licensed hunter. | Statute |
| In re Endangered Species Act Section 4 Deadline Litigation-MDL No. 2165 | 704 F.3d 972 (D.C. Cir. Ct. App.,2013) | 2013 WL 45871 (D.C. Cir. Ct. App.,2013) |
After parties in a lawsuit over listing species as endangered or threatened agreed upon a settlement, the Safari Club motioned to intervene because the settlement might affect three species that the club's members hunt. The district court denied the motion to intervene as of right because the club lacked Article III standing and denied a permissive intervention because it would cause undue delay and prejudice to the parties; the court then approved the settlement and the club appealed. The appeals court affirmed the lower court's decision that the club lacked Article III standing for intervening as of right. The appeals court, however, in view of uncertainty whether Article III standing was required for permissive intervention, declined to exercise pendant appellate jurisdiction over the permissive intervention appeal. |
Case |
| State v. Peabody | 343 Ga. App. 362, 807 S.E.2d 107 (2017) | 2017 WL 4801538 (Ga. Ct. App. Oct. 25, 2017) | This Georgia case involves a former police lieutenant who was indicted on two counts of aggravated cruelty to animals after he left his K-9 named Inka locked in his police vehicle while he attended to tasks inside his home. The dog died after being left inside the vehicle, which had all doors and windows closed with no A/C or ventilation running. The state appeals the trial court's grant of defendant's motion to quash the indictment. Specifically, the state argues that OCGA § 17-7-52 (a law that requires at least a 20-day notice prior to presentment of a proposed indictment to a grand jury when a peace officer is charged with a crime that occurred in the performance of his or her duties) is inapplicable. The state did not send defendant a copy of the proposed indictment before it presented the case to the grand jury. The state contends defendant "stepped aside" from his police-related duties and was therefore not afforded the protections of OCGA § 17-7-52. This court disagreed with that assessment. Since Peabody was responsible for the care and housing of Inka as her K-9 handler, leaving her unattended, albeit in an illegal manner, was still in performance of his police duties. As such, Peabody was entitled to the procedural protections of the statute according to the appellate court. The trial court's motion to quash his indictment was affirmed. | Case |
| State v. Arnold | 147 N.C. App. 670 (N.C. App. 2001) | 147 N.C. App. 670 |
Defendant appealed from a conviction of participating as a spectator at an exhibition featuring dog fighting alleging that the statute under which he was convicted is unconstitutionally vague, overbroad and an invalid exercise of police power. The appellate court found the statute to be constitutional. Defendant also argued that the trial court erred in failing to dismiss the charge for insufficient evidence, however the appellate court found that there is substantial evidence to support the conviction. |
Case |
| MT - Commerce - 87-6-202 Unlawful possession, shipping, or transportation of game fish, bird, game animal | MCA 87-6-202 | MT ST 87-6-202 (formerly MT ST 87-3-111) | Under Montana State law, it is unlawful to buy, sell, or possess, or offer to buy, sell or possess any migratory game bird, game fish, or game animal. The exceptions include the possession and transportation of legally taken game animals, the sale or purchase of hides, heads or mounts of legally acquired game animals, and the possession of naturally shed antlers of game animals, among other exceptions. | Statute |
| Viva! v. Adidas | 63 Cal.Rptr.3d 50 (Cal., 2007) | 2007 WL 2080000 (Cal. 2007), 41 Cal.4th 929 | Viva, an animal protective organization, filed action against Adidas shoe retailer alleging that it was violating a state statute banning the import of products made from Australian kangaroo hide into California. On cross motions for summary judgment, the original court sided with Adidas, on the ground that state statute was preempted by federal Endangered Species Act of 1973. The appeals court affirmed, however the California Superior Court reversed, holding that the state statute was not preempted by federal law. | Case |
| IL - Lost Property - Estrays and Lost Property Act | 765 I.L.C.S. 1020/0.01 - 36 | IL ST CH 765 § 1020/0.01 - 36 | These Illinois' statutes comprise the state's Estrays and Lost Property Act. | Statute |
| Argentina - Marine mammals - Ley 22.584, 1982 | LEY N° 22.584 | Ley 22584 approves the "Convention on the Conservation of Antarctic Marine Living Resources” that was adopted at the Diplomatic Conference held in Canberra on May 20, 1980 and subscribed by Argentina on the September 11th of that year. | Statute | |
| American Society For The Prevention of Cruelty To Animals v. Ringling Brothers and Barnum & Bailey Circus | 2008 WL 3411666 (D.D.C.) |
On Plaintiffs’ motion to compel discovery from Defendants, The United States District Court, District of Columbia, determined that “master schedules” and “performance reports” were not documents pertaining to the chaining of elephants, and/or describing practices and procedures for maintaining elephants on the train, and Plaintiffs were therefore not entitled to such documents. The Court could not determine whether certain audio tapes demanded by Plaintiffs pertained to the medical condition or health status of any Asian elephants in Defendants’ custody during a specified time-frame, or pertained to the investigation of Defendants’ operation conducted by the Department of Agriculture, without being given the opportunity to listen to and review the audio tapes. Plaintiffs’ mere speculation that Defendants hired an outside consulting firm to follow and/or counteract a previous employee’s efforts did not entitle Plaintiffs to any further judicial action. |
Case | |
| Leger v. Louisiana Dept. of Wildlife and Fisheries | 306 So.2d 391 (La.App. 1975) |
Alex Leger instituted this action against the Louisiana Wildlife and Fisheries Commission and Burton Angelle, in his capacity as Commissioner of the Louisiana Department of Wildlife and Fisheries, to recover damages for the loss of his 1973 sweet potato crop. Leger's primary contention was that, since the State of Louisiana is the owner of all wild quadrupeds according to statute, it is legally responsible for damages done to his potato crop. The court held that the statutory language compels the conclusion that the state's ownership is in a sovereign, and not a proprietary, capacity. Thus, the nature of the ownership is as a trustee and the management duties are carried out under police power authority. The court found nothing in the cited statutes or in the law which indicates that the state has a duty to harbor wild birds or wild quadrupeds, to control their movements or to prevent them from damaging privately owned property. |
Case |