Results
| Title | Citation | Alternate Citation | Summary | Type |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| IN - Wildlife - THE WILD LIFE (PROTECTION) AMENDMENT ACT, 2002 | THE WILD LIFE (PROTECTION) AMENDMENT ACT, 2002, No. 16 of 2003 |
This law comprises India's Wild Life (Protection) Amendment Act, 2002. According to the amended long title, it is "An Act to provide for the protection of wild animals, birds and plants and for matters connected therewith or ancillary or incidental thereto with a view to ensuring the ecological and environmental security of the country. " The Amendment Act also establishes the National Board for Wild Life. |
Statute | |
| Carpenters Indus. Council v. Salazar | 734 F.Supp.2d 126 (D.D.C., 2010) | 2010 WL 3447243 (D.D.C.) |
Plaintiffs, Carpenters Industrial Council, among several, averred that the FWS, in designating the owl as a "threatened species," violated the National Environmental Policy Act, the ESA, and the Administrative Procedure Act. Defendant, the FWS, confess legal error as to the northern spotted owl’s 2008 Critical Habitat Designation and 2008 Recovery Plan and ask that the court: (1) remand and vacate the 2008 Designation; (2) remand the 2008 Plan; and (3) order the FWS to revise its recovery plan and, if necessary, thereafter complete a new critical habitat designation. First, as to Defendant’s request to remand the designation, the court held that it, in fact, has such authority to do so, and such action is moreover appropriate, since the Washington Oversight Committee erred in proffering "jeopardizing" advice to the FWS. However, as to the whether the 2008 Designation may be vacated, the court concluded that it lacked the authority to do so "at this stage of the litigation." As to whether the 2008 Recovery Plan may be vacated, the court held that, given the interconnectedness of the 2008 Designation and the 2008 Plan, remand is appropriate. |
Case |
| Brower v. Daley | 93 F. Supp. 2d 1071 (2000) |
Based on the Secretary of Commerce’s decision to weaken the dolphin-safe standard, David Brower, Earth Island Institute, The Humane Society of the United States, and other individuals and organizations challenged the finding as arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, and contrary to law. The District Court for the Northern District of California found that the Secretary’s Initial Finding was not in accordance with the law and was an abuse of discretion because the Secretary failed to properly consider these studies. |
Case | |
| IN - Cattle Slaughter - CHHATTISGARH AGRICULTURAL CATTLE PRESERVATION ACT, 2004 | 25 of 2006 | The Act, specific to the state of Chhattisgarh, prohibits the slaughter of agricultural cattle—cows, calves, bulls, bullocks and male and female buffaloes. The law criminalizes the possession and sale of beef, and the transport of agricultural cattle from the state for the purpose of slaughter. The state government shall make rules for the economic rehabilitation of persons affected by the Act. | Statute | |
| City of Columbiana v. Simpson | --- N.E.3d ----, 2019 WL 4897158 (Ohio Ct. App., 2019) | 2019-Ohio-4086 (2019) | Richard G. Simpson, Appellant, lived in a residential district in Columbiana, Ohio. Simpson kept eight hens, a chicken coop, and an enclosure on his property for approximately seven years. On July of 2016, Simpson was informed that keeping chickens in the district he lived in was a zoning violation, however, Simpson found no prohibition in the Code regarding the keeping of chickens in a residential district. The city sent Simpson violation notices and instructed him to remove the chickens from the property. Simpson appealed the violation to the Planning Committee. On June 20, 2017 the City Council voted to place a resolution on the ballot for voters to decide whether chickens could be kept in residential districts. The resolution failed at the general election. A second notice was sent to Simpson and Simpson refused to remove the chickens from his property. The City instituted an action for declaratory judgment and injunctive relief on March 13, 2018. The trial court held that the keeping of chickens was prohibited in the City’s residential districts and that the city ordinances were valid on their face and were not arbitrarily or capriciously applied. Simpson appealed. Simpson argued that keeping the chickens did not constitute an agricultural use or poultry husbandry because he kept them as a hobby and therefore does not violate any of the city ordinances. The Court did not agree and concluded that the keeping of chickens fell within the definition of agriculture and was, therefore, prohibited based on the ordinances. Simpson next argued that since he acquired the chicken and coop prior to the City applying the prohibitions, it was a legal non-conforming use and that the zoning code contained no language that would have put him on notice that such property was not permitted on his real property. The Court concluded that there was no error by the trial court in holding that Simpson’s use of his land was not a legally conforming use. Finally, Simpson argued that the one of the city ordinances was arbitrary and unreasonable because there was no evidence of the chickens, coup, or enclosure constituting a nuisance. The Court concluded that a city is not required to show that a property owner’s proposed use constitutes a nuisance in order to establish the constitutionality of the ordinance. The Court found that the ordinance was neither arbitrary nor unreasonable and bears a substantial relation to the public health. The ordinance was a valid exercise of the City’s police power. The Court ultimately held that the City ordinance prohibited the keeping of chickens in residential districts. The prohibition was inferred from reading the ordinance in concert with other Code sections. The judgment of the trial court was affirmed. | Case |
| MI - Initiatives - Proposal 14-1, Keep Michigan Wolves Protected | Proposal 14-1 (2014) |
This proposal for 2014 is a referendum of Public Act 520 of 2012, which authorizes the establishment of the first open hunting season for wolves. It will appear on the November 4, 2014 ballot. The measure will UPHOLD Public Act 520, which allows the authorization of wolf hunting seasons in Michigan. In Michigan, a "Yes" vote on a veto referendum upholds the law and a "No" vote rejects the law. As a result, the referendum's supporters are campaigning for a "No" vote. |
Statute | |
| CA - Assistance Animal - California Assistance Animal/Guide Dog Laws | West's Ann. Cal. Penal Code § 600.2, 600.5, West's Ann. Cal. Civ. Code § 54 - 55.32; West's Ann.Cal.Educ.Code § 39839; West's Ann. Cal. Food & Agric. Code § 30850 - 30854; West's Ann. Cal. Health & Safety Code § 121680; Cal. Vehicle Code § 21963; | West's Ann. Cal. Penal Code § 365.5 - .7; West's Ann. Cal. Welf. & Inst. Code § 12553 - 12554; West's Ann. Cal. Health & Safety Code § 122317 - 122319.5 | The following statutes comprise the state's relevant assistance animal and guide dog laws. | Statute |
| New York Revised Statutes 1829: Title 6: Section 26 | N.Y. Rev. stat. tit. 6, 26 (1829) | The law contained in Title 6, Section 26 of the New York Revised Statutes of 1829 concerns the offense of maliciously killing an animal of another. The statute describes the type of animals covered and the punishment for killing, wounding, or maiming such an animal. In addition, the statute also states the punishment for the offense of cruelty to animals. | Statute |