Results
| Title | Citation | Alternate Citation | Agency Citation | Summary | Type |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| IN - Bite - Indiana Dog Bite Laws | IC 15-20-1-1 - 7; IC 35-47-7-4 | IN ST 15-20-1-1 - 7; IN ST 35-47-7-4 | These Indiana statutes provide the state's dog bite laws. If a dog, without provocation, bites any person who is peaceably conducting himself in any place where he may be required to go for the purpose of discharging any duty imposed upon him by the laws of this state or by the laws or postal regulations of the United States of America, the owner of such dog may be held liable for any damages suffered by the person bitten, regardless of the former viciousness of such dog or the owner's knowledge of such viciousness. It also establishes the conditions under which an owner will be criminally liable if his or her dog bites another person. In Indiana, physicians treating dog bite injuries are required to report such injuries not more than 72-hours after the incident. | Statute | |
| Canada - New Brunswick Provincial Dog Regulations - N.B. Reg. 84-85 | Agency Citation |
In this province the main legislation governing dog husbandry and the penalties for dog misbehaviour or running at large are in the form of regulations pursuant to the provincial Municipalities Act. |
Administrative | ||
| OR - Disaster - Chapter 401. Emergency Services | Or. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 401.975, § 401.977, § 401.978; § 404.350 | OR ST Or. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 401.975, § 401.977, § 401.978; § 404.350 | In Oregon, the Office of Emergency Management must prepare a written animal emergency operations plan that provides for the evacuation, transport and temporary sheltering of companion and service animals during a major disaster or an emergency. The office shall consider various factors, including allowing owners and their companion animals to be evacuated together, establishing evacuation shelters for animals in close proximity to human shelters, and establishing an identification system so that owners can locate their animals. | Statute | |
| Ammon v. Welty |
Amicus Brief about non-economic damages in case where warden shot a family dog. |
Pleading | |||
| Sierra Club v. Clark | 755 F.2d 608 (8th Cir. 1985) |
The Government issued regulations which allowed for the sport hunting of the Eastern Timber Wolf (otherwise known as the gray wolf) in Minnesota, where the wolf was listed as threatened. The court held that such regulations were invalid because the Endangered Species Act, Section 4(d) required that such regulations must be "for the conservation" of the wolf, which means for the best interest of the wolf. The court found that the hunting of the wolf in this manner did not have the motive of the best interest of the wolf in mind. |
Case | ||
| Argentina - Farm animals - Ley 3.959, 1900 | LEY 3.959 | This is the law of the Police for Animal Health. The purpose of this law is to set the parameters to ensure the protection of livestock against contagious exotic diseases. This law regulates topics such as importation and exportation of livestock, prohibiting the importation or exportation of animals infected with contagious diseases or suspected of being infected. | Statute | ||
| Northern Arapahoe Tribe v. Hodel | 808 F.2d 741 (10th Cir. 1987) | 6 Fed.R.Serv.3d 1248 (1987) |
After the Secretary of the Interior promulgated regulations establishing a game code regulating hunting on the reservation, the Arapahoe Tribe of Wyoming sued the Secretary and other federal officials, seeking declaratory and injunctive relief to prevent enforcement of the regulations. At issue, was a concern over the declining big game populations on the reservation and surrounding areas due to an unusually harsh winter and over-hunting. The Court of Appeals held that the government had the right to enact the game code because the rights of two tribes overlapped with regard to a limited resource, and the "[g]overnment's right extends to preventing overuse by the Arapahoe of their shared right when that overuse endangers the resource and threatens to divest the Shoshone of their right." Where there exists a risk of extinction, the government may enact interim game code measures to prevent the threat when the tribes fail to enact their own game codes. |
Case | |
| Conservation Congress v. U.S. Forest Service | 720 F.3d 1048 (9th Cir. 2013) | 13 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 5970; 2013 WL 2631449 |
When two federal agencies authorized the Mudflow Vegetation Management Project, a conservation group sued the agencies for failing to adequately evaluate the project's effects on the Northern Spotted Owl's critical habitat, in violation of the Endangered Species Act. Upon appeal of the lower court's decision, the Ninth Circuit concluded that the conservation group's challenge to the district court's denial of a preliminary injunction was premised on a misunderstanding of regulatory terms, on an unsupported reading of a duty to consider cumulative effects under the Endangered Species Act,and on selected portions of the record taken out of context. The district court's decision was therefore affirmed.
|
Case | |
| NM - Fur/Trapping - Article 5. Trappers and Fur Dealers | NMSA 1978, § 17-5-1 to 17-5-9 | NM ST § 17-5-1 to 17-5-9 | These New Mexico statutes regulate trappers and fur dealers. Fur-bearing animals, such as muskrat, mink, weasel, beaver, otter, nutria, masked or blackfooted ferret, ringtail cat, raccoon, pine marten, coatimundi, badgers, bobcat and foxes, may only be taken during certain seasons or with a permit and/or a license. Fur dealers must have a license to buy or sell skins. A violation of the statutes is a misdemeanor. | Statute | |
| Safari Club International v. Zinke | 878 F.3d 316 (D.C. Cir. 2017) | 2017 WL 6544114 | This case dealt with an action brought by an organization of safari hunters and firearm advocacy association under the Administrative Procedures Act (APA) and the Endangered Species Act (ESA) against the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Services (FWS), challenging the decision to suspend imports of sport-hunted African elephant trophies from Zimbabwe. The U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia entered summary judgment in FWS's favor, and the organization and association appealed. Under the ESA, sport-hunted African elephant trophies may only be imported into the United States if, among other things, the FWS makes “[a] determination ... that the killing of the trophy animal will enhance the survival of the species”. The Court of Appeals held that 1) FWS's interpretation of Special Rule forbidding import of sport-hunted elephant trophies was permissible; 2) FWS could base finding that killing of African elephants did not enhance species' survival on absence of evidence that sport hunting enhanced survival of species; 3) FWS's conclusion that it lacked evidence to make finding that killing African elephants in Zimbabwe would enhance survival of species rebutted any presumption that importation did not violate any provision of ESA or regulation issued pursuant to ESA; 4) removal of enhancement requirement from Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora did not require FWS to reconsider Special Rule; 5) finding constituted rule rather than adjudication; and 6) FWS's failure to engage in notice-and-comment prior to finding was not harmless error. Affirmed in part and reversed in part, and remanded so the FWS can initiate rule making to address enhancement findings for the time periods at issue in this case. | Case |