Results
| Title | Citation | Alternate Citation | Summary | Type |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Defenders of Wildlife v. Salazar | 729 F.Supp.2d 1207 (D.Mont.,2010) | 2010 WL 3084194 (D.Mont.,) |
In February of 2008, Defendant, the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service (the "Service"), issued a final ruling to delist the Rocky Mountain gray wolf species, removing the ESA’s protections throughout the northern Rocky Mountain distinct population segment ("DPS"), except in Wyoming. Twelve parties challenged the final ruling, arguing, foremost, that the decision violates the ESA by only partially protecting a listed population. The United States District Court for the District of Montana issued two findings: (1) the ESA does not allow the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service to list only part of a species as endangered, or to protect a listed distinct population segment only in part; and (2) the legislative history of the ESA does not support the Service’s interpretation of the phrase "significant portion of its range," but instead supports the long-standing view that the ESA does not allow a distinct population to be subdivided. Accordingly, the Service’s ruling to delist the Rocky Mountain gray wolf was vacated as invalid and Plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment was granted. |
Case |
| U.S. v. Jim | 888 F. Supp. 1058 (D. Or. 1995) |
Court considered defendant's claim based on newly enacted RFRA. Court finds defendant's asserted need to kill 12 eagles a year would decimate eagle population in Oregon. While not perfect, court finds the eagle permit system the least restrictive means to achieve the compelling need of protecting eagles. For further discussion on religious challenges to the BGEPA by Native Americans, see Detailed Discussion of Eagle Act. |
Case | |
| Ley 21.676, 1977 | LEY Nº 21.676 | Ley Nº 21.676 approves the "Convention for the Conservation of Antarctic Seals" adopted by the Conference on the Conservation of Antarctic Seals held in London in 1972 and signed by the Argentine Republic on June 9, 1972. | Statute | |
| TN - Dog - Consolidated Dog Laws | T. C. A. §§ 44-8-408 - 413; §§ 44-17-101 - 601; T. C. A. § 5-1-120, § 6-54-135, § 39-14-205, § 39-14-213, § 44-14-104, § 70-4-103, § 70-4-112; § 70-4-118, § 70-4-122, § 70-2-214; § 4-1-343 | These Tennessee statutes comprise the state's dog laws. Among the provisions include licensing requirements for companion animal dealers, laws concerning damage done by dogs, and the Tennessee Spay/Neuter Law. | Statute | |
| NJ - Endangered - Chapter 2A. Wildlife Generally | NJSA 23:2A-1 to 23:2A-1:16 | NJ ST 23:2A-1 to 23:2A-1:16 | These statutes comprise the New Jersey Endangered and Nongame Species Conservation Act. The definitions used in the Act are described as well as the rules for listing species, the powers and duties of the supervising department, and the designation of funding. Under the statute, violation of the Act incurs a civil penalty of $250-5,000. In 2014, provisions were added for the prohibition on import, sale, or purchase of ivory products. In 2018, a law was added that prohibits a person from using a wild or exotic animal in a traveling animal act. | Statute |
| Strickland v. Medlen | -397 S.W.3d 184 (Tex. 2013) | 2013 WL 1366033 (Tex.,2013) |
The Supreme Court of Texas considers petitioner's appeal from the court of appeals' decision holding that a dog owner may recover intangible loss-of-companionship damages in the form of intrinsic or sentimental-value property damages. The facts underlying the action involved the improper euthanization of respondents' dog, Avery. They sued for Avery's “sentimental or intrinsic value” because the dog had little or no market value and was irreplaceable. The trial court found that Texas law barred such damages, and dismissed the suit with prejudice. The Court of Appeals of Texas became the first court to hold that a dog owner may recover intangible loss-of-companionship damages in the form of intrinsic or sentimental-value property damages. The Supreme Court reverses that decision here, ruling that dogs are ordinary property, with damages limited to market value, and noneconomic damages based in relational attachment are not permitted. |
Case |
| JACQUELINE CONRAD, PlaintiffAppellant, v. SUSAN CATAPANO and JIM CATAPANO, DefendantsRespondents | Not Reported in A.3d 2013 WL 673463 (N.J.Super.A.D.,2013) |
Plaintiff was injured by defendants' dog after being knocked to the ground. The plaintiff had her dog over to defendants' house for a "doggie play date" and the dogs were running off-leash in the fenced yard.The lower court granted defendants' motion for summary judgment on plaintiff's claims of negligence and absolute liability, finding that the defendants had not prior knowledge of the dog's propensity to run into people. The Court found that there were genuine issues of material fact as to defendants' prior knowledge of the dog's proclivities to become "hyper" in the presence of other dogs. Thus, the decision to grant summary judgment was reversed and the matter remanded for trial. Notably, the Court did state that it shared "the motion judge's observation that plaintiff may well be comparatively at fault here for choosing to stand in the backyard while the three unleashed dogs ran around." |
Case | |
| United States of America v. Hale | 113 Fed.Appx. 108 | 2004 WL 2367994 |
A couple owned and operated a caviar business. They were convicted of violating the Lacey Act by purchasing and selling paddlefish eggs during the closed season, falsifying records and operating a fish dealership without a license. The Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction. This Judgment was Vacated by Hale v. U.S ., 125 S.Ct. 2914 (2005). |
Case |
| Colombia - Wildlife - Decreto 1608, 1978 | DECRETO 1608 de 1978 | Decreto 1608 regulates the Code of Natural Renewable Resources and environmental protection regarding terrestrial wildlife, as well as all the activities and products relating to this resource. Even though Decreto 1608, lays out general dispositions for the conservation and protection of terrestrial wildlife, Article 5 establishes that Decreto 1608 applies to “the management of cetaceans, sirenians, pinnipeds, marine and semi-aquatic birds, sea turtles and fresh or brackish water, anuran batrachians and all other species that do not complete their life cycle in the aquatic environment, but that depend on it for their subsistence.” In order to guarantee the efficient use of wildlife and its products, Decreto 1608, requires specific licenses for the exploitation of wildlife and its products. It establishes the parameters and limitations for the activity of hunting and the granting of licenses for this purpose. | Statute | |
| Animal Law Index Volume 17, Part 1 |
Animal Law Review, Volume 17, Issue 1 (Fall 2010)
INTRODUCTIONLEGAL PERSONHOOD AND THE NONHUMAN RIGHTS PROJECT
|
Policy |