Results
| Title | Citation | Alternate Citation | Agency Citation | Summary | Type |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Colombia - Cruelty - LEY 05, 1972 | Ley 05 de 1972 | This statute creates and regulates the creation of the Boards for Animal Defense. These boards, once legally constituted, become legal persons, with their main goal to raise awareness and educate the community about respect towards animals and animal protection through educational programs. Ley 5, 1972, establishes the creation of these boards as mandatory in all the municipalities in the country, as well as fines and arrests for those who are found responsible for committing cruel acts towards animals. At the same time, it establishes that the police have a duty to assist the Animal Defense Boards in the fulfillment of their goals. These boards are integrated by the Mayor or his/her delegate; the Parish Priest or his slender; the Municipal Representative or his/her delegate; a representative of the Secretary of Agriculture and Livestock of the respective Department; and a delegate chosen by the directives of the local schools. With the creation of these boards, the law seeks to promote educational campaigns that “tend to awaken the spirit of love towards animals that are useful to humans and to avoid cruel acts and unjustified mistreatment and abandonment of such animals." | Statute | ||
| Stout v. U.S. Forest Service | 2011 WL 867775 (2011) |
Plaintiff ranch owners grazed cattle within the Murderer's Creek Wild Horse Territory (WHT), an area in which the threatened Middle Columbia River steelhead was present. The Forest Service approved a wild horse management plan in the area, but failed to prepare a Biological Assessment (BA) to determine whether the plan was likely to affect the threatened species, and whether formal consultation with the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) was necessary. The Forest Service’s failure to comply with section 7(a)(2) of the Endangered Species Act (ESA) was arbitrary and capricious, and was ordered to consult with NMFS on its plan. |
Case | ||
| Animal Welfare Institute v. Martin | 665 F.Supp.2d 19 (D.Me., 2009) | 2009 WL 3403128 (D.Me.) |
Plaintiffs in this case filed motions for a preliminary injunction and a temporary restraining order to halt the commencement of the early coyote and fox trapping season in the state of Maine. Plaintiffs claim that the Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife (DIFW)Commissioner had violated the ESA by allowing trapping activities that “take” Canada lynx, a threatened species. The DIFW stated that the Court has already addressed a motion for preliminary injunction and an emergency motion for temporary restraining order, with no change to circumstances. In denying Plaintiffs' Motion for Preliminary Injunction and TRO, the Court found that Plaintiffs had not sustained their burden to justify the extraordinary remedy of an injunction. Further, the Court found that the circumstances that led the Court to deny the Plaintiffs' emergency motion for a temporary restraining order have not changed. |
Case | |
| Maupin v. Sidiropolis | 600 S.E.2d 204 (W.V. 2004) |
Dog owner appealed the decision of the State Racing Commission which found that the owner was not eligible for payments under the State Greyhound Breeding Development Fund. The Circuit Court reversed, and the Commission appealed. The Court of Appeals found that (1) any owner of a greyhound may participate in the fund as long as eligibility requirements are met; (2) that the inclusion of a nonresident joint tenant did not prevent the joint tenant from receiving money from the Fund; and (3) that a joint ownership interest in the dogs was created by the styling of the registration documents. |
Case | ||
| WY - Fur - Article 3. Miscellaneous Fees; Taxidermists; Trapping; Fur Dealers. | W. S. 1977 §§ 23-2-301 to 307 | WY ST §§ 23-2-301 to 307 | This set of Wyoming laws sets forth the requirements and costs to obtain trapping and taxidermist licenses. Any trap or snare found in the field not bearing the name and address of the owner of the trap or snare or the identification number assigned by the department to the owner of the trap or snare may be confiscated by any employee of the department. Any landowner or his agent may inspect any trap or snare set on his property, may remove the trap or snare and may release or remove from the trap or snare any wildlife which has not been taken lawfully. However, it is a "low misdemeanor" to tamper with or remove any trap or snare set or maintained in compliance with this act or release a furbearer or predator found in a legal trap. | Statute | |
| SC - Wildlife - § 50-1-125. Wildlife defined; penalties for trafficking in wildlife. | Code 1976 § 50-1-125, § 50-1-290 | SC ST § 50-1-125, SC ST § 50-1-290 | These South Carolina statutes define wildlife as being a wild animal, bird, reptile, amphibian, fish, mollusk, crustacean, or product, egg, offspring, or dead body parts. It is illegal to buy, sell, or possess wildlife except as specifically allowed by this title. A violation is a misdemeanor, and the person could face a fine and/or imprisonment. | Statute | |
| Dorman v. Satti | 678 F.Supp. 375 (D.Conn.,1988) | The federal district court here considered the constitutionality of Connecticut’s Hunter Harassment Act (Conn.Gen.Stat. Section 53a-183a) of 1985. The plaintiff was arrested under the Act after she approached hunters who were hunting waterfowl in public lands adjacent to her property and attempted to verbally dissuade them from hunting. The charge was ultimately dismissed, but plaintiff brought a Section 1983 action to adjudicate the constitutionality of the Act. In finding the Act unconstitutionally vague and overbroad, the Court found that it criminalized constitutionally protected speech. Specifically, the Court found that the Act failed to define “interference” and did not adequately limit the reach of “acts in preparation” to hunt. | Case | ||
| McElroy v. Carter | Not Reported in S.W.3d, 2006 WL 2805141 (Tenn.Ct.App.) |
In this Tennessee case, a man shot and wounded a cat owned by his neighbor as the animal exited from the bed of the man's prized pickup truck. The cat died from its wounds shortly thereafter. The neighbor sued for the veterinary bills she incurred for treatment of the cat's injuries. The truck owner counter-sued for the damage the cat allegedly caused to his truck by scratching the paint. After a bench trial, the court awarded the truck's owner $6,500 in damages, which it offset by a $372 award to the neighbor for her veterinary bills. The Court of Appeals reversed that decision finding that as a matter of law the cat's owner cannot be held liable for not keeping her cat confined when the damage the cat allegedly caused was not foreseeable. |
Case | ||
| NH - Pet Shop - Chapter Agr 1700. Transfer of Animals and Birds. | N.H. Code Admin. R. Agr 1701.01 - 1703.02 | N.H. Code Admin. R. Agr 1702.01 - 10 | These rules establish standards for the regulation of animal health and welfare that are consistent with the pattern established in statute by the Legislature. Animal health regulation focuses on those conditions that pose a threat to public health, that would require regulatory intervention to protect the economy of the state, or both. | Administrative | |
| VA - Disaster - § 44-146.18. Department of Emergency Services continued as Department of Emergency Management; | VA Code Ann. § 44-146.18 | VA ST § 44-146.18 | In Virginia, the State Department of Emergency Management must develop an emergency response plan to address the needs of individuals with household pets and service animals in the event of a disaster (subsection (B)(18)). | Statute |