Results
| Title | Citation | Alternate Citation | Summary | Type |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Feld Entertainment, Inc. v. A.S.P.C.A. | 523 F.Supp.2d 1 (D.D.C., 2007) | 2007 WL 3285836 (D.D.C.) |
Pending before the Court is Defendant American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, et al.'s (“ASPCA”) Motion to Temporarily Stay All Proceedings. The suit arises from Feld Entertainment, Inc. (“FEI”) claim against the ASPCA and other defendants, including Tom Rider, alleging violations of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (“RICO”). The gravamen of plaintiff's complaint is that defendant Tom Rider has been bribed by the organizational defendants to participate in the ESA Action against FEI in violation of federal law. The court agreed that the public interest in the ESA claim weighs in favor of granting the temporary stay. |
Case |
| China - Fishing - China Fisheries Law | Order No. 34 (1986) |
Although old, it remains the law for fishing in China " for the purpose of enhancing the protection, increase, development and reasonable utilization of fishery resources, developing artificial cultivation, protecting fishery workers' lawful rights and interests and boosting fishery production, so as to meet the requirements of socialist construction and the needs of the people." |
Statute | |
| OH - Youngstown - Breed - 505.191 Prohibition of Pit Bull Terriers. | YOUNGSTOWN, OH., CODIFIED ORDINANCES § 505.191 (2007) |
In Youngstown, Ohio, no person may own, keep, harbor or possess a Pit Bull Terrier, with an exception for dogs previously registered. However, such dogs must be kept in compliance with mandatory requirements, such as being properly confined or kept on a leash with a muzzle. The owner must also post a "Beware of Dog” sign and keep liability insurance. A violation is a misdemeanor and may result in the dog being impounded and humanely destroyed. |
Local Ordinance | |
| State v. Shook (Unpublished) | 2002 WL 31894726 |
Defendant Shook (a non-tribal member) shot and killed a whitetail buck on private property within the exterior boundaries of the Flathead Indian Reservation. Under Wildlife and Parks Commission hunting regulations, big game hunting privileges on Indian Reservations are limited to tribal members only, thereby closing the hunting season to non-tribal members. On appeal, Shook contended that the regulation was a violation of equal protection because it discriminated based on race. The court disagreed, finding the classification was political rather than racial because it was established through treaty with the federal government and recognized the unique federal obligation toward Indians. Thus, the court found the regulation was an "entirely rational" means to preserve wildlife populations for hunting by Indians. |
Case | |
| VA - Rabies - § 3.2-6523. Inoculation for rabies at animal shelters | Va. Code Ann. § 3.2-6523 | VA ST § 3.2-6523 | This Virginia statute provides that animals at a shelter may be inoculated by a licensed veterinary technician who is under the direct supervision of a veterinarian when an emergency rabies ordinance has been issued by a city or county. | Statute |
| OK - Property - § 1717. Dog as personal property | 21 Okl. St. Ann. § 1717 | OK ST T. 21 § 1717 | Dogs are considered personal property in Oklahoma. | Statute |
| Animal Legal Defense Fund, Inc. v. Espy | 23 F.3d 496 (C.A.D.C.,1994) | 306 U.S.App.D.C. 188 (C.A.D.C.,1994) |
In this case, animal welfare groups and two individuals challenged the regulation promulgated by Department of Agriculture that failed to include birds, rats, and mice as “animals” within meaning of Federal Laboratory Animal Welfare Act (FLAWA). The United States District Court for the District of Columbia, denied defendant's motion to dismiss, and subsequently granted plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment. Defendant appealed. The Court of Appeals held that plaintiffs could not demonstrate both constitutional standing to sue and statutory right to judicial review under the APA. The Court vacated the district court's judgment and remanded the case with directions to dismiss.
|
Case |
| Lundy v. California Realty | 216 Cal.Rptr. 575 (Cal.App.4.Dist.) | 170 Cal.App.3d 813 (Cal.App.4.Dist.) |
The Court of Appeals held that an owner of a dog may be held liable for injuries inflicted by it on another person without any showing the dog had any especially dangerous propensities or that the owner knew of any such dangerous propensities. However, to impose liability on someone other than the owner, even a keeper, previous knowledge of the dog's vicious nature must appear. Aside from the rental agreement, the property owners knew nothing whatever about the dog. Thus, the facts before the trial court fell far short of creating a triable issue of fact as to defendant property owners' knowledge of any dangerous propensities on the part of the tenant's dog. "Neither do we believe judicial notice may be taken that all German shepherds are dangerous. Nor can defendants' knowledge of any dangerous propensity of the dog be inferred simply because they knew his name was Thunder." |
Case |
| Journal of Animal and Natural Resource Law, Vol. 9 |
Published by the students of Michigan State University College of LawJournal of Animal & Natural Resource Law Vol. IX (2013)The table of contents is provided below. |
Policy |