Results
| Title | Citation | Alternate Citation | Summary | Type |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| IN RE: CRAIG LESSER AND MARILYN LESSER | 52 Agric. Dec. 155 (1993) | 1993 WL 151162 (U.S.D.A.) |
Respondents, Craig and Marilyn Lesser, were respectively, president and vice-president of LSR Industries, a Wisconsin corporation that was in the business of breeding and selling rabbits to research institutions, and licensed dealers under the Animal Welfare Act. The ALJ issued an Initial Decision and Order assessing civil penalties of $9,250, and suspending Respondents' license for 30 days, after respondents interfered with APHIS inspections of their facilities and failed to maintain their facilities in accordance with the standards involving housing, sanitation, cleaning, ventilation, storage of food and bedding, and lighting. However, the Judicial Officer increased the civil penalties of $9,250 assessed by the ALJ by $500, because of sanitation and waste violations, for which the ALJ assessed no civil penalties. Since Respondents did not raise any issue before the ALJ as to whether warrantless inspections are unreasonable under the Fourth Amendment, they cannot raise the issue on appeal. The Fourth Amendment is not violated by warrantless inspections under this regulatory statute. |
Case |
| Western Watersheds Project v. Hall | Slip Copy, 2007 WL 2790404 (D.Idaho) |
Plaintiff Western Watersheds Project filed the instant action challenging the “90-Day Finding” issued by the Defendants United States Fish and Wildlife Service that denied protection of the Interior Mountain Quail as endangered or threatened under the Endangered Species Act. The Service determined that the Petition had failed to provide information demonstrating that the Interior Mountain Quail population is discrete under the ESA. The District Court stated that, in order to qualify as a DPS, a population must “be both discrete and significant.” The court found that the Service's conclusion appropriately determined that this discreteness standard was not met and it provided a rational basis for concluding the Petition had failed to provide evidence of a marked separation between the populations of the same taxon. |
Case | |
| Vill. of Orion v. Hardi | 2022 IL App (4th) 220186 | 2022 WL 17256761 (Ill.App. 4 Dist., 2022) | The plaintiff, the Village of Orion (Village), sued defendants, Patricia A. Hardi and Michael Larson, to enjoin them from keeping more than three cats in violation of a Village ordinance. After a dismissal and amended complaint by the Village, the trial court granted defendants' amended motion to dismiss, finding that the Village had previously voted to allow defendants to keep more than three cats. Here, the Village appeals this decision. By way of background, the defendants lived together in the Village since 1998, and one defendant served as the animal control officer for about 15 years. In 2013, the Village enacted an ordinance making it unlawful to keep more than three dogs or cats over the age of six months (except for licensed kennels or veterinarian clinics). At a Village board meeting in 2014, the minutes revealed that members of the board agreed to allow defendants to keep the dogs ad cats to live out their natural lifetimes. However, in 2017, the Board served a "notice to abate nuisance" for keeping more than three cats or dogs. This was followed by a complaint filed by the Village against defendants. In 2018, defendants filed a motion to dismiss alleging the three-cat limit was arbitrary and was "superseded" by a criminal action where one defendant pleaded guilty to animal cruelty, but was allowed to keep 10 cats. The trial court's order found that the Board's language at the 2014 meeting revealed "unambiguous" language that defendants could keep the cats in their possession. After remand, the Village filed its second amended complaint in 2022 and defendants against filed a motion to dismiss. After a hearing with testimony from Board members and others, the trial court found there was a motion to allow the keeping of the excess cats and this negated the ability of the Village to proceed with an ordinance violation. On appeal here, this court finds the 2014 board minutes are insufficient to support a motion to dismiss. The submission of the board minutes together with and a defense witness, followed by the Village's presentation of another board member's testimony to refute that, amounted to the court "improperly allow[ing] the parties to conduct a mini-trial on the veracity of the essential allegations of the complaint." The motion was used to attack the factual basis of the claim. Thus, the trial court's order granting the dismissal was reversed and the matter was remanded. | Case |
| Sample Table to Copy | Topic Table | |||
| South Africa - Protected Areas Act - National Environmental Management | No. 57 of 2003: National Environmental Management: Protected Areas Act, 2003. | This act is to provide for the protection and conservation of ecologically viable areas representative of South Africa’s biological diversity and its natural landscapes and seascapes; for the establishment of a national register of all national, provincial and local protected areas; for the management of those areas in accordance with national norms and standards; for intergovernmental co-operation and public consultation in matters concerning protected areas; and for matters in connection therewith. | Statute | |
| AK - Hunting - § 16.05.790. Obstruction or hindrance of lawful hunting, fishing, trapping, or viewing of fish or game | AS § 16.05.790 | AK ST § 16.05.790 | This Alaska law constitutes the state's hunter harassment law. Under the law, a person may not intentionally obstruct or hinder another person's lawful hunting, fishing, trapping, or viewing of fish and game. Only a peace officer may arrest a person for violation of this section. Exclusions include lawful competitive hunting, actions taken on private property with the consent of the landowner, and obstruction or hindrance by a person actively engaged in lawful hunting, fishing, or trapping activities. Violation is a misdemeanor with a fine of not more than $500 or imprisonment for not more than 30 days, or both. | Statute |
| Farm Sanctuary, Inc. v. Veneman | 212 F.Supp.2d 280 (S.D.N.Y. 2002) |
Plaintiffs Farm Sanctuary, Inc. and Michael Baur filed this action seeking a declaratory judgment holding that the Secretary of Agriculture Ann Veneman and the United States Department of Agriculture must classify all downed livestock as adulterated pursuant to 21 U.S.C. § 342(a) and an injunction prohibiting the USDA from allowing non-ambulatory animals to be used for human consumption. Defendants have moved to dismiss the complaint, inter alia, on the grounds that plaintiffs lack standing to sue. For the reasons discussed, the Government's motion is granted. |
Case | |
| Plotnik v. Meihaus | 146 Cal.Rptr.3d 585 (Cal. App. 3 Dist.) | 208 Cal.App.4th 1590; 2012 WL 3764874 (Cal. App. 3 Dist.) |
A long history of bad neighborly relations resulted in the plaintiffs' dog sustaining injuries from being hit with a baseball; the injuries required surgery and post-operative care. While the plaintiffs brought many causes of actions against their neighbors, a father and his two sons, this case is significant in the realm of animal law because it held that a pet owner may recover for emotional distress under the trespass to personal property cause of action. The court, however, would not allow the plaintiffs to recover for their dog's injuries under the intentional infliction of emotional distress cause of action because they would have recovered duplicative damages for the same transactional event. |
Case |
| IN - Animal Sacrifice - THE PUDUCHERRY ANIMALS AND BIRDS SACRIFICES PROHIBITION ACT, 1965 | 8 of 1965 | This law, specific to the Union Territory of Puducherry (formerly known as Pondicherry), prohibits animal sacrifice within the precincts of temples. Persons shall not perform, officiate at, or participate in animal sacrifice. | Statute | |
| Captive Wildlife Issues | Policy |