Results
Displaying 6561 - 6570 of 6649
| Title | Citation | Alternate Citation | Agency Citation | Summary | Type |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Evelyn Alexander Wildlife Rescue Ctr. Inc. v. New York State Dep't of Envtl. Conservation | Slip Copy, 2017 WL 4868956 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. Oct. 12, 2017) | Petitioners, licensed wildlife rehabilitators with New York Wildlife Rehabilitation Licenses (WRL), challenged two statewide modifications to the WRL pertaining to white-tailed deer, which became effective in 2016. Petitioners contend these actions violated the state Administrative Procedures Act (SAPA). Additionally, they argue the modifications were irrational, arbitrary, capricious, and an abuse of discretion, and WRLs were improperly modified without a prior State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA). The first modification limits the time white-tailed fawns can be held for rehabilitation to a period of only April 15 to September 15 (absent prior written approval). The second modification limits the maximum holding period for an adult white-tailed deer (before release or euthanization) to 48-hours. This court did not find either modification was arbitrary, capricious, or an abuse of discretion. In response to the challenges, the state, through a wildlife biologist, contends they are intended to prevent habituation and the spread of chronic wasting disease (CWD). The explanatory statements provided for the modifications support reasonable and rational interpretations of rehabilitation and do not violate the SAPA. The September 15th cut-off day for fawns was based on scientific research conducted by the state's "Big Game Team" that sought to address issues of disease as well as "a documented pattern of licensed wildlife rehabilitators in New York who have been reluctant to either euthanize or release white-tailed deer." As to the modification for adult deer, there was a rational basis since that time period allows the care of a temporarily stunned deer in need of a short rehabilitation period balanced against disease and habituation concerns. The court also found that the issuance of WRL is a ministerial action exemption from environmental review under SEQRA. The petitions in this consolidated action were denied in their entirety and the proceeding dismissed. | Case | ||
| WA - Ecoterrorism - 4.24.570. Acts against animals in research or educational facilities | West's RCWA 4.24.570 - 580 | WA ST 4.24.570 - 580 | These Washington sections concern interference with animal research or educational facilities as well as facilities that keep animals for agricultural or veterinary purposes. Both sections provide that any person or organization that plans or assists in the development of a plan to commit an intentional tort described in the laws is liable for damages to the same extent as a person who has committed the tort. However, membership in a liable organization does not in itself establish the member's liability under this subsection. Section 4.24.580 allows an individual employed with an animal facility to obtain injunctive relief if he or she has reason to believe that he or she may be injured. This includes obtaining an injunction to prevent harassment. | Statute | |
| OR - Lost Property - Chapter 98. Lost, Unordered and Unclaimed Property | O.R.S. § 98.005 - 050 | OR ST § 98.005 - 050 | These statutes comprise Oregon's lost property provisions. | Statute | |
| Empacadora De Carnes De Fresnillo v. Tim Curry |
Plaintiff seeks an injunction against state of Texas to stop the enforcement of a law prohibiting the slaughter of horses in Texas as the law is improper on a number of bases. |
Pleading | |||
| Anderson v Ah Kit | [2004] WASC 194 |
In proceedings for defamation, the plaintiff alleged that the defendant published information giving rise to the imputations that the plaintiff left animals to starve and that the Northern Territory government had to intervene to feed those animals. The defendant pleaded, inter alia, the defences of Polly Peck and fair comment. The Court ruled that the Polly Peck defense was sufficiently justified to survive the plaintiff's strike out application. It was held, however, that although animal welfare generally was a matter of public interest, the welfare of some animals held on private property was not, and could not be made by extensive media coverage, a matter of public interest. |
Case | ||
| Argentina - Transportation - Decreto 1248, 1975 | Decreto 1248 | This Decreto contains the regulations for the safe treatment of live animals during loading, unloading and transportation of livestock. It aims for the humane treatment of animals during transportation and other related options. | Statute | ||
| TX - Impound - § 826.033. Restraint, Impoundment, and Disposition of Dogs and Cats. | V. T. C. A., Health & Safety Code § 826.033 | TX HEALTH & S § 826.033 | This Texas statute provides that a municipality or county may adopt ordinances or rules to require that each dog or cat be restrained by its owner and that any stray dog or cat be declared a public nuisance. Further, it can declare that each unrestrained dog or cat be detained or impounded by the local rabies control authority. Each stray dog or cat be impounded for a period set by ordinance or rule and a humane disposition be made of each unclaimed stray dog or cat upon its expiration. | Statute | |
| NV - Wildlife - Chapter 501. Administration and Enforcement. | NRS § 501.097 | NV ST § 501.097 | "Wildlife" means any wild mammal, wild bird, fish, reptile, amphibian, mollusk or crustacean found naturally in a wild state, whether indigenous to Nevada or not and whether raised in captivity or not. | Statute | |
| AZ - Phoenix - Chapter 8 - ANIMALS. | Chapter 8 |
The following comprises Phoenix, Arizona's animal-related ordinances. Topics include the keeping of reptiles or wild animals, vicious animal provisions, and sections addressing animal cruelty. An entire article (Article IV) deals with the confinement of animals in motor vehicles. |
Local Ordinance | ||
| US - Endangered Species - Subpart D. Threatened Wildlife | 50 C.F.R. § 17.31 - 17.48 | These Endangered Species Act regulations relate to threatened species. Included in the provisions are requirements for obtaining permits to take such species for one of the following purposes: scientific purposes, or the enhancement of propagation or survival, or economic hardship, or zoological exhibition, or educational purposes, or incidental taking, or special purposes consistent with the purposes of the Act. Also included are special rules for certain mammals, reptiles, birds, and fishes among other species. | Administrative |