Results

Displaying 81 - 90 of 6754
Title Citation Alternate Citation Summary Type
U.S. ex rel. Haight v. Catholic Healthcare West 594 F.3d 694 (C.A. 9 (Ariz.), 2010) 2010 WL 376093 (C.A.9 (Ariz.))

The plaintiffs, In Defense of Animals and Patricia Haight brought suit against the defendants, Michael Berens, the principal research investigator of the study in question, and the Barrow Neurological Institute, St. Joseph’s Hospital and Medical Center, Catholic Healthcare West Arizona, and Catholic Healthcare West, his employers, under the False Claims Act.  In 1997, defendant Michael Berens, Ph.D., submitted a grant application to the NIH in which he sought federal funding for a project to develop a canine model to study glioma, a form of human brain cancer, and attempted to create a process for implanting gliomas in the brains of beagles. The plaintiffs brought suit against Dr. Berens under the False Claims Act asserting that he had lied in his grant application in order to obtain NIH funding. The district court granted summary judgment to the defendants, holding that the plaintiffs failed to produce sufficient evidence from which a reasonable jury could find that the challenged grant application statements were objectively false.   In response, the plaintiffs filed a notice to appeal 51 days later, relying on a circuit court precedent allowing plaintiffs 60 days to file a notice of appeal in these types of cases.   However, an intervening Supreme Court decision declared that plaintiffs have only 30 days to file a notice to appeal in this type of case.   This case was amended and superseded by US ex rel Haight v. Catholic Healthcare West , 602 F.3d 949 (9th Cir., 2010).

Case
Rupert v. Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 957 F.2d 32 (1st Cir. 1992)

Appellant was the pastor of an all-race Native American church that required the use of eagle feathers during certain worship who challenged the BGEPA after being denied a permit to obtain eagle feathers because he was not a member of a recognized Indian tribe.  Under an equal protection analysis, the court found the limitation on the use of eagle parts to Native Americans is rationally related to the government's interest in preserving the eagle population as well as the special religious and cultural interests of Native Americans.  For further discussion on religious challenges to the BGEPA by non-Native Americans, see Detailed Discussion of Eagle Act.

Case
ME - Housing - § 6025-A. Access to care for animals 14 M. R. S. A. § 6025 - 6025-A ME ST T. 14 § 6025 - 6025-A This 2023 law states that a landlord may also require, as a condition of tenancy, that the tenant allow the landlord to enter the rental unit in the case of an emergency when the welfare of the animal is at risk to determine whether the animal has been abandoned or is in need of care. If the landlord determines that a tenant with an animal has vacated the premises or is unable to care for the animal due to death or disability, the landlord may contact a person authorized by the tenant, a humane agent, an animal control officer or an animal shelter to pick up and care for the animal. Statute
Associated Dog Clubs of New YorkState, Inc. v. Vilsack 75 F.Supp.3d 83(D.D.C. 2014) With the increase of sales over the Internet, the Department of Agriculture, through the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (“APHIS”), issued a new rule that redefined “retail pet store” to include online pet stores. Several breeders argued that the agency exceeded its statutory authority in issuing the new rule. The Secretary for the Department of Agriculture moved for summary judgment. Since APHIS acted within its authority in promulgating the rule and otherwise complied with the requirements of the Administrative Procedures Act, the Court granted summary judgment for the agency. Case
CA - Importation - Chapter 3. Importation of Wild Animals. West's Ann. Cal. Health & Safety Code § 121775 - 121870 CA HLTH & S § 121775 - 121870 This California set of law relates to the importation of "wild animals" (defined as any animal of the class Aves (birds) or class Mammalia (mammals) that either is not normally domesticated in this state or not native to this state). The violation of any provision of this chapter shall be a misdemeanor. The department may issue a permit to import a wild animal provided that a determination is made that public health or safety will not be endangered.< Statute
New York Revised Statutes 1866: Chapter 783: Sections 1-10 N.Y. Rev. Stat. ch. 783, §§ 1-10 (1866) Chapter 783, entitled "An act for the more effectual prevention of animal cruelty," concerns New York's Law on animal treatment for 1866. Statute
United States v. 144,774 Pounds Of Blue King Crab 410 F.3d 1131 (9th Cir. Wash., 2005) 2005 WL 1355511 (9th Cir. Wash.)

An importer of 144,774 pounds of cooked, frozen blue king crab was charged with violating the Lacey Act for taking the crab in violation of Russian fishing regulations.  The crab is subject to forfeiture under the Lacey Act on a strict liability basis, but the importer asserted an "innocent owner" defense.  The trial court denied the owner's defense and the Court of Appeals affirmed, reasoning if the crab was illegally taken under Russian law then it is considered contraband for Lacey Act purposes regardless of its status under U.S. law.

Case
CITES - Dates and Places of CITES Meetings

The following provides meetings of the Conference of the Parties under CITES.

Treaty
WI - Ordinances - Subchapter IV. Town Board. 60.23. Miscellaneous powers W. S. A. 60.23 WI ST 60.23 This Wisconsin statute provides that the town board may enact and enforce ordinances, and provide forfeitures for violations of those ordinances, that are the same as or similar to ordinances that may be enacted by a county to regulate dogs running at large under s. 59.54(20). Statute
UK - Dangerous Dogs - Dangerous Dogs (Amendment) Act 1997 1997 CHAPTER 53

This amendment affects the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991. The Amendment Act allows a court to exercise discretion in deciding whether to destroy a prohibited dog (e.g., a "pit bull" type dog, Japanese Tosa, Fila Brasileiro, Dogo Argentino, or any dog with the physical appearance, not necessarily breed, of a fighting dog).

Statute

Pages