Results
| Title | Citation | Alternate Citation | Agency Citation | Summary | Type |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| US - Critical Habitat - Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Establishment of a Nonessential Experimental Population f | 50 CFR Part 17, RIN 1018-AH44, 2005 WL 779150 (F.R.) |
This final rule is a collaborative effort between the FWS and the states of Tennessee and Alabama and Conservation Fisheries, Inc. to reintroduce the boulder darter ( Etheostoma wapiti ) , an endangered fish, and the spotfin chub ( Cyprinella (= Hybopsis ) monacha ) , a threatened fish to its historical habitat in Lauderdale County Alabama and Lawrence County, Tennessee. This rule provides for Non-essential Experimental Populations (NEP) within the designated area and it establishes limited allowable legal takings in that area. Additionally, this rule also changes the scientific name of the spotfin chub from Cyprinella (= Hybopsis ) monacha to Erimonax monachus , to reflect a recent change in the scientific literature. |
Administrative | ||
| KS - Exotic Pets - Chapter 32. Wildlife, Parks and Recreation. | K. S. A. 32-1301 to 1312 | KS ST 32-1301 to 1312 | This set of Kansas statutes comprises the state's dangerous regulated animals act. Under the Act, a "dangerous regulated animal" means a live or slaughtered parts of lions, tigers, leopards, jaguars, cheetahs and mountain lions, or any hybrid thereof; bears or any hybrid thereof; and all non-native, venomous snakes. Except as provided in this section, it is unlawful for a person to possess, slaughter, sell, purchase or otherwise acquire a dangerous regulated animal. | Statute | |
| CT - Fisheries & Wildlife - Chapter 490. Fisheries and Game. § 26-1. Definitions | C. G. S. A. § 26-1 | CT ST § 26-1 | This law contains definitions for the Connecticut Fisheries and Wildlife Department. | Statute | |
| Southeastern Community College v. Davis | 99 S.Ct. 2361 (1979) |
Applicant to nursing program brought suit against the college alleging discrimination under Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act for denying her acceptance to the program based on her physical disability of being deaf. The college alleged that the applicant was not "otherwise qualified" under the statute because, even if provided accommodations for her hearing disability, she would be unable to safely participate in the clinical training program. The court held that "otherwise qualified" under the statute means that a person is qualified for the program "in spite of" the handicap, and that the applicant here was not otherwise qualified for the program. The court also held that a program authority is not required to ignore the disability of the applicant when determining eligibility for the program. Rather, the statute only requires that the disabled person not be denied the benefits of the program solely because of the disability. |
Case | ||
| Stennette v. Miller | 316 Ga.App. 425, 729 S.E.2d 559 (Ga.App., 2012) | 2012 WL 2384423 (Ga.App.) |
Plaintiff Stennette was providing in-home nursing care while she was bitten multiple times by Defendant Miller's dog. Stennette appeals from the trial court's grant of summary judgment to Miller in Stennette's personal injury action. This Court affirmed that decision because Stennette failed to provide adequate evidence showing triable issues on whether the dog had a vicious propensity and whether Miller knew of that propensity. However, the Court reversed the grant of summary judgment as to Miller on Stennette's claim that Miller negligently performed a voluntarily-undertaken duty to keep the dog away from her when she was at the house, because the evidence created genuine issues of material fact as to this claim. |
Case | |
| MA - Eggs - Ch. 129 Prevention of Farm Animal Cruelty Act | M.G.L.A. 129 §§ 1-1 - 1-12 | Mass. Gen. Laws Ann. ch. 129 App., §§ 1-1 - 1-12 (West) | This collection of laws was created by Massachusetts voters when they approved Question 3 and the 2016 ballot. These laws prevent the inhumane confinement of pregnant pigs, calves raised for veal, and egg-laying hens in the state of Massachusetts. These laws also prohibit the sale of products in Massachusetts made from animals confined in violation of these laws. | Statute | |
| Robinson v. City of Bluefield | 764 S.E.2d 740 (W. Va. Oct. 2, 2014) | 234 W. Va. 209, 2014 WL 5032602 (W. Va. Oct. 2, 2014) | An Animal Control Officer responded to a complaint about two dogs at defendant's residence. While investigating the complaint at defendant's residence, the animal control officer was attacked by one of defendant's dogs. The officer sought medical treatment following the incident. The City of Bluefield subsequently brought charges against defendant in its municipal court, charging her with having a dangerous animal in violation of city ordinances. The municipal court ordered the dog killed. On appeal, the Circuit Court of Mercer County affirmed the municipal court's decision. Defendant then appealed the Circuit Court's decision arguing that that Circuit Court erred in concluding that the municipal court had the authority to order the destruction of her dog. After review, the Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia agreed with defendant and found that under the plain language of W.Va.Code § 19–20–20, the City of Bluefield was required to set forth satisfactory proof that defendant’s dog was “vicious, dangerous, or in the habit of biting or attacking other persons” before a circuit court or a magistrate, not a municipal court. The court therefore found that ordinance was void to the extent that it allowed a municipal court to order the destruction of the dog. The circuit court's order affirming the municipal court's order to kill Ms. Robinson's dog was therefore reversed. Justice Loughry dissents. | Case | |
| US - Eagles - Golden Eagle Management Plan | 1982 WL 133688 (F.R.) | FR Doc. 82-3479 (1982) |
This notice advises the public of the Fish and Wildlife Service's development of a golden eagle management plan and invites public comment. The plan is needed to : (1) identify golden eagle needs; and (2) guide Service management and research efforts for golden eagles. The intended effect of the plan is to protect and conserve golden eagle populations while facilitating balanced development of the Nation's natural resources and the resolution of eagle/man conflicts. |
Administrative | |
| GA - Dog - Consolidated Dog Laws | Ga. Code Ann., § 4-8-1 - 45; Ga. Code Ann., § 4-14-1 - 4-15-1; Ga. Code Ann., § 26-2-160; Ga. Code Ann., § 27-3-16 - 18; § 27-3-49; Ga. Code Ann., § 16-11-107 - 107.1; Ga. Code Ann., § 50-3-88 | GA ST § 4-8-1 to 45; GA ST § 4-14-1 to 4-15-1; GA ST § 27-3-16 to 18; § 27-3-49; GA ST § 16-11-107 - 107.1; GA ST § 50-3-88 | These Georgia statutes comprise the state's dog laws and the "Responsible Dog Ownership Law." Among the provisions of the Responsible Dog Ownership Law include a requirement for registration of dangerous dogs as well as the necessity of such owner to carry at least $50,000 in liability insurance. Owners of these dogs who do not comply with these and other provisions may have their dogs confiscated and destroyed. Any person who violates this article is guilty of a misdemeanor. | Statute | |
| CA - Burro - § 4600. Killing or capturing undomesticated burro; prima facie evidence | West's Ann. Cal. Fish & G. Code § 4600 | CA FISH & G § 4600 | This section makes it unlawful to kill, wound, capture, or have in possession any undomesticated burro. An undomesticated burro is a wild burro or a burro which has not been tamed or domesticated for a period of three years after its capture. | Statute |