Results
| Title | Citation | Alternate Citation | Agency Citation | Summary | Type |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Center for Biological Diversity v. Henson | Slip Copy, 2009 WL 1882827 (D.Or.) |
Defendants brought a motion to stay in an action brought by Plaintiffs seeking re-initiation of consultation under ESA with respect to the Oregon Department of Forestry’s Habitat Conservation Plan promulgated in 1995 and their Incidental Take Permit obtained in 1995, which allows incidental taking of Northern Spotted Owls for sixty years in connection with timber harvest in the Elliot State Forest. The United States District Court granted Defendants’ motion, finding that the potential harm and likelihood of damage to Plaintiffs if the action is stayed is low. The court also found that Defendants showed an adequate likelihood of hardship in having to go forward without a stay. The stay would likely result in the action ultimately becoming moot and/or at the very least greatly simplified, therefore saving judicial time and resources. |
Case | ||
| WY - Dangerous - Article 1. In General. (Dangerous Dog Provisions) | W. S. 1977 § 11-31-105 to 108 | WY ST § 11-31-105 to 108 | This Wyoming statute provides that every person, firm, copartnership, corporation or company owning any dog, which to his knowledge has killed sheep or other livestock, shall exterminate and destroy the dog. In addition, the owner of any dog is liable for all damages that accrue to any person, firm or corporation by reason of the dog killing, wounding, worrying or chasing any sheep or other domestic animals belonging to the person, firm or corporation. | Statute | |
| SC - Ordinances - § 47-3-20. Local animal care and control ordinances authorized. | Code 1976 § 47-3-20 | SC ST § 47-3-20 | This South Carolina statute provides that the governing body of each county or municipality in this State may enact ordinances and promulgate regulations for the care and control of dogs, cats, and other animals and to prescribe penalties for violations. | Statute | |
| Moore v. People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, Inc. | 932 N.E.2d 448 (Ill.App. 1 Dist., 2010) | 2010 WL 2266081 (Ill.App. 1 Dist.), 402 Ill.App.3d 62 |
Plaintiffs, Ami Moore and Doggie Do Right-911, Inc., aver that defendants PETA, Diane Opresnik, John Keene, and Mary DePaolo defamed them and placed them in a false light by stating that the plaintiff dog trainer placed a shock device on a dog's genitals and allegedly shocked it. Prior to this action, the claim against PETA was settled and dismissed. The defamation claims against Opresnik, Keene, and DePaolo, persisted. In dismissing the remaining claims, the court found that there was no positive factual statement of criminal animal cruelty to support a defamation per se claim. Further, another claim fell outside the statute of limitations period and was also inadequately supported by specific allegations. |
Case | |
| DILLON v. O'CONNOR | 412 P.2d 126 (Wash. 1966) | 68 Wash.2d 184 (1966) |
As the court stated, "This is ‘The Case of the Costly Canine.' ‘Bimbo,’ an acknowledged ‘tree hound' but without pedigree or registration papers, lost a bout with defendant's automobile. For ‘Bimbo's' untimely demise, his owner, plaintiff, brought suit against defendant alleging that ‘Bimbo’ was killed as a result of defendant's negligent operation of his automobile." Ultimately, the court used a market value approach in determining damages. However, based on subsequent caselaw, it should be noted that Washington uses the market value approach only for negligent injury, and not intentional injury. |
Case | |
| US - Birds - Part 15. Wild Bird Conservation Act | 69 FR 4557 | 50 CFR 15.1 to .53 | The regulations in this part implement the Wild Bird Conservation Act of 1992, Pub.L. 102-440, 16 U.S.C. 4901-4916. Exotic bird means any live or dead member of the Class Aves that is not indigenous to the 50 States or the District of Columbia. This Act prohibits the importation of exotic birds into the U.S. except by permit. Permits authorizing the importation of exotic birds will be issued under the regulations for the following purposes only: scientific research; zoological breeding or display programs; cooperative breeding programs designed to promote the conservation and maintenance of the species in the wild; or personally owned pets accompanying persons returning to the United States after being out of the country for more than 1 year. The regulations further provide that no individual may import more than two exotic birds as pets in any year. | Administrative | |
| The Ecology Center v. Russell | 361 F.Supp.2d 1310 (D.Utah,2005) |
The instant case is a Petition for Review of Agency Action, brought by The Ecology Center and The Aquarius Escalante Foundation (Plaintiffs). Plaintiffs seek review of a Record of Decision (ROD) issued by the Acting Forest Supervisor of the Dixie National Forest (the DNF), an agency of the United States Department of Agriculture. The decision in question is the final approval by the DNF of the Griffin Springs Resource Management Project, (the Project) in which the DNF approved a plan to allow logging in the Griffin Springs area of the DNF. Plaintiffs seek declaratory and injunctive relief to stop the implementation of the plan, claiming that the ROD violates the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), the National Forest Management Act (NFMA), and the Administrative Procedures Act (APA). Of particular concern, is the effect upon the northern goshawk. |
Case | ||
| MI - Cruelty - Consolidated Cruelty Statutes (MCL 750.49 - 70) | M. C. L. A. 750.49 - 70a; M.C.L.A. 750.158 | MI ST 750.49 - 70a; 750.158 | The Michigan Legislature has designed three primary provisions related to cruelty to animals: intentional infliction of pain and suffering, duty to provide care, and anti-animal fighting. The intentional infliction of pain and suffering provision carries the most severe penalties for animal cruelty and a violation is automatically a felony. A violation of the duty to provide care provision is initially a misdemeanor, which becomes a felony for a second or subsequent violation. A violation of the anti-animal fighting provision is either a misdemeanor or a felony, depending on the severity of conduct related to fighting. The provision does not apply to the lawful killing of livestock or customary animal husbandry of livestock, or lawful fishing, hunting, trapping, wildlife control, pest or rodent control, and animal research. | Statute | |
| VA - Rabies - § 3.2-6522. Rabid animals | Va. Code Ann. § 3.2-6522 | VA ST § 3.2-6522 | This Virginia statute provides that, when there is sufficient reason to believe that a rabid animal is at large, the governing body of any county, city or town shall have the power to pass an emergency ordinance that shall become effective immediately upon passage, requiring owners of all dogs and cats therein to keep the same confined. It further outlines the steps that must be undertaken pursuant to such an ordinance, including proof of vaccination from pet owners, procedures for impounding and euthanizing suspected infected animals, and procedures relating to an animal biting a person. | Statute | |
| Wright v. Fish and Game Commission (unpublished) | 2003 Cal. App. Unpub. LEXIS 8091 | 2003 WL 22007258 (Cal.App. 4 Dist.) |
The California Court of Appeal upheld the state's Fish and Game Commission’s ferret ban against an equal protection challenge from a ferret owner. The owner argued that the ban discriminated between ferret owners and owners of other companion animals. However, the court found a rational relation between the ban and concerns about wildlife and human health (from attacks and from rabies). |
Case |