Results
Displaying 1 - 10 of 6754
| Title | Citation | Alternate Citation | Summary | Type |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| MS - Wildlife, Bounty - Chapter 5. Health, Safety and Public Welfare. In General. | Miss. Code Ann. § 19-5-51 | MS ST § 19-5-51 | This Mississippi law provides that any board of supervisors may, by appropriate resolution offer a bounty not to exceed $5.00 for each nutria, beaver or bobcat destroyed, where the board determines that nutria, beaver or bobcats are in such quantities that the preservation of trees is at issue. The The Mississippi Department of Wildlife, Fisheries and Parks will issue a $5 bounty upon the presentation of the tail of any beaver. | Statute |
| Denise Venero v. Prince George's County Maryland | Slip copy, 2024 WL 1285642 (D. Md. Mar. 26, 2024) | Plaintiffs filed this putative class action to challenge the Prince George's County, Maryland Pit Bull Ordinance and enforcement of the ordinance. Plaintiffs assert multiple due process and equal protection claims in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment, as well as several violations of the Fair Housing Act. The ordinance bans the keeping of pit bull terriers in the county, and requires any pit bull owners at the time the ordinance was adopted to register the dog, pay a fee, maintain a secure kennel, and keep the dog secure at all times. The court in this case found that the plaintiffs lack standing, since they could not show an injury in fact relating to the county's enforcement of the ordinance, the county has returned seized dogs to the plaintiffs, and the plaintiffs have been afforded due process through the county's administrative process. | Case | |
| Colombia - Animal control - Ley 769 | Ley 769 | This law is Colombia's National Code of Traffic. Article 97 delegates to the territorial entities the duty to create municipal shelters ("cosos municipales" or animal deposits") adequate for the keeping of animals of minor species, major species, and wildlife. | Statute | |
| ND - Initiatives - Initiated Statutory Measure 2 (game farm hunts) | Measure 2 (2010) | This 2010 ballot measure provided: A person is guilty of a class A misdemeanor if the person obtains fees or other remuneration from another person for the killing or attempted killing of privately-owned big game species or exotic mammals confined in or released from any man-made enclosure designed to prevent escape. This section does not apply to the actions of a government employee or agent to control an animal population, to prevent or control diseases, or when government action is otherwise required or authorized by law. It failed at the polls (43.4%). | Statute | |
| Re The International Fund for Animal Welfare (Australia) Pty Ltd and Ors and Minister for Environment and Heritage | (2006) 42 AAR 262 | [2006] AATA 94 |
Zoos in New South Wales and Victoria sought to import five Asian elephants. After an initial hearing, further evidence was sought in relation to the condition and nature of the facilities at the zoos. The Tribunal decided that the importation of the elephants should be in accordance with a permit issued under s 303CG of the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (Cth). |
Case |
| ME - Assistance Animal - Assistance Animal/Guide Dog Laws | 17 M. R. S. A. § 1311 - 1316; 26 M. R. S. A. § 1420-A - 1420C; 7 M. R. S. A. § 3961-A; 5 M. R. S. A. § 4551 - 4555, 4582-A, 4592; 14 M. R. S. A. § 6030-G; 14 M. R. S. A. § 164-B | ME ST T. 17 § 1311 - 1316; ME ST T. 26 §§ 1420-A - 1420-C; ME ST T. 7 § 3961-A; ME ST T. 5 § 4551 - 4555, 4582-A, 4592; ME ST T. 14 § 6030-G; ME ST T. 14 § 164-B | The following statutes comprise the state's relevant assistance animal and guide dog laws. | Statute |
| New Legal Perspectives: The Synergy of Law and Science to Protect the Rights of Nature Agenda |
|
Policy | ||
| Marino v. Nat'l Oceanic & Atmospheric Admin. | 33 F.4th 593 (D.C. Cir. 2022) | 2022 WL 1548489 (D.C. Cir. May 17, 2022) | Plaintiff animal welfare organizations sued the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) and its parent agency, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, seeking to enforce conditions in permits held by SeaWorld. The permits authorize the capture and display of orcas and require display facilities to transmit medical and necropsy data to the NMFS following the death of an animal displayed under the terms of a permit. In 1994, the Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA) was amended such that it shifted authority to oversee conditions of marine mammals at exhibitors from NMFS to the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS). After three pre-1994 orcas died at SeaWorld, plaintiffs tried to convince NMFS that it still had the authority to enforce the pre-1994 rules related to release of records, but NMFS contended that its authority was extinguished in 1994. Plaintiffs brought suit, arguing that the NMFS's policy rests upon an arbitrary and capricious interpretation of the MMPA, and that its refusal to enforce the permit conditions was also arbitrary and capricious. The district court dismissed the plaintiffs’ suit for lack of standing. On appeal here, the court examined plaintiffs' standing under the three-part Lujan test. The court found a lack of redressability for the plaintiffs. Plaintiffs fail to allege any facts from which the court could infer the relief they seek would likely cause the NMFS to redress their alleged harms. In fact, because the MMPA language on permits is permissive, NMFS has discretion whether to enforce them. This is coupled with the fact that there is no evidence that third-party SeaWorld will turn over the reports even if NMFS were to direct them. Therefore, this court held that the district court did not err in determining that the plaintiffs lacked standing to pursue this case. Affirmed. | Case |
| Brooks v. Jenkins | 220 Md. App. 444, 104 A.3d 899 (Md. Ct. Spec. App., 2014) | 2014 WL 7148925 (Md. Ct. Spec. App. Dec. 16, 2014) | County deputies went to a home with a warrant to arrest a couple's son. While many facts in this case were in dispute, the undisputed result was that a deputy shot the family's chocolate Labrador retriever. While the couple left the house to take the dog to the vet, the deputies entered the house—contrary to the couple's express instructions— and arrested the son. The couple filed a complaint in the Circuit Court seeking damages, on a number of theories, for the wounding of the dog and the officers' alleged unlawful entry into their home. After a trial, the couple prevailed against the deputies and the jury awarded damages totaling $620,000 (reduced, after remittitur, to $607,500). The deputies appeal. The Maryland Court of Special Appeals held the issue of whether deputy acted with gross negligence in shooting dog was for the jury; CJ § 11–110 did not limit the couple's total recovery for the constitutional tort to the capped value of their pet's vet bills; the $200,000 jury award in non-economic damages to the couple on their constitutional tort claim was not excessive in light of the evidence; the deputies were entitled to immunity from the constitutional trespass claim; and the couple could not recover emotional damages on the common law trespass claim. The lower court's decision was therefore affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded. | Case |
| Veterinary and Pet Damages Issues | Policy |
