Results
| Title | Citation | Alternate Citation | Summary | Type |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Humane Soc'y of the United States v. Nat'l Institutes of Health | Slip Copy, No. 21-CV-00121-LKG, 2022 WL 17619232 (D. Md. Dec. 13, 2022) | Plaintiff animal welfare advocates sued the National Institute of Health (NIH) for failing to transfer all chimpanzees housed at the Alamogordo Primate Facility to a retirement sanctuary known as “Chimp Haven." According to plaintiffs, transfer is required under the federal Chimpanzee Health Improvement, Maintenance and Protection Act (“CHIMP Act”), 42 U.S.C. § 283m, as well as the Administrative Procedure Act (APA). In 2015, NIH officially announced that it would cease biomedical research on chimpanzees and establish a working group to transfer all 288 surplus chimpanzees owned by NIH to Chimp Haven. In 2019, the NIH announced that not all chimpanzees would be transferred to Chimp Haven because 44 of those individuals were too frail for transfer due to medical conditions. After cross-motions for summary judgment, this court considers whether transfer is legally required. On appeal, Plaintiffs contend that the plain language of the CHIMP Act requires the transfer of all chimps and the court owes no deference to agency interpretation. In contrast, the Government argues that the decision is consistent with the CHIMP Act because the plain language of the act only requires that surplus chimpanzees offered by NIH be "accepted" into CHIMP Haven. The court found that the plain and unambiguous language, and use of the word "shall," in the CHIMP Act requires the NIH to transfer ALL chimpanzees to the federal sanctuary system. In addition, the legislative history of the CHIMP Act reinforces that reading of the statute. While the court recognized NIH's concern toward the frailest chimpanzees, the proper avenue is within the legislative branch. Notably, the court was unsure as to the proper remedy in this particular matter (e.g., whether a remand or vacatur is more appropriate). As a result, Plaintiffs' motion for partial summary judgment was granted and the Government's cross motion was denied as was the motion to dismiss. The court directed the parties to file a joint status report report with views on the relief Plaintiff seeks and how the matter should proceed in light of the instant opinion. | Case | |
| South Africa - Biodiversity - National Environmental Management | No. 10 of 2004: National Environmental Management: Biodiversity Act, 2004. | The objectives of this Act are, within the framework of the National Environmental Management Act, to provide for the management and conservation of biological diversity within the Republic and of the components of such biological diversity; to provide for the use of indigenous biological resources in a sustainable manner; and to provide for the fair and equitable sharing among stakeholders of benefits arising from bioprosgecting involving indigenous biological resources. Other objecitves of this Act are to give effect to ratified international agreements relating to biodiversity which are binding on the Republic; to provide for co-operative governance in biodiversity management and conservation; and to provide for a South African National Biodiversity Institute to assist in achieving the objectives of this Act. | Statute | |
| AK - Trusts - § 13.12.907. Honorary trusts; trusts for pets | AS § 13.12.907 | AK ST § 13.12.907 | This Alaska statute provides that trusts for the continuing care of designated domestic animals are valid, provided they are a duration of 21 years or less. The trust terminates when a living animal is no longer covered by the trust. Any remaining trust funds do not go to the trustee, but rather transfer by the order stipulated in the statute. | Statute |
| Texas Beef Group v. Winfrey | 201 F.3d 680 (C.A.5 (Tex.),2000) | 45 Fed.R.Serv.3d 1370, 28 Media L. Rep. 1481 |
Cattle ranchers in Texas sued the
The Oprah Winfrey Show
and one of its guests for knowingly and falsely depicting American beef as unsafe in the wake of the British panic over “Mad Cow Disease.” The matter was removed from state court to federal court. The federal district court granted summary judgment as a matter of law on all claims presented except the business disparagement cause of action, which was eventually rejected by a jury. The court alternately held that no knowingly false statements were made by the appellees. This court affirmed on this latter ground only, finding that the guest's statement and the producers' editing of the show did not violate the Texas False Disparagement of Perishable Food Products Act.
|
Case |
| Take Me Home Rescue v. Luri | 146 Cal.Rptr.3d 461 (Cal.App. 2 Dist, 2012.) | 208 Cal.App.4th 1342; 2012 WL 3727604 (Cal.App. 2 Dist, 2012.) |
Defendant Luri appeals an injunction against her to return a foster dog that she failed to have spayed in accordance with an agreement between her and Take Me Home pet rescue organization. In finding that the trial court did not err in issuing the injunction, the court found that Take Me Home had a reasonable likelihood for success on the merits of its breach of contract claim because the original agreement was amended by a separate oral agreement that the dog would be spayed after recovering from a bout of mange. Further, in assessing the balance of harms, the court found that it favored Take Me Home. While Luri can either spay the dog or adopt a new one, the organization's "entire existence depends on its ability to place pets that it obtains from shelters in adoptive homes." |
Case |
| IN - Animal Sacrifice - THE KARNATAKA PREVENTION OF ANIMAL SACRIFICES ACT, 1959 | 3 of 1960 | The law, specific to the southern state of Karnataka, prohibits animal and bird sacrifices in places of public religious worship. Persons are prohibited from performing, organizing, or participating in animal sacrifices—they are criminal offences carrying a fine or imprisonment. Police officers not below the rank of a sub-inspector may arrest persons committing an offence under this Act without a warrant. | Statute | |
| Topical Introductions | Topical introductions contain a collection of legal materials (cases, laws, and articles) for a specific topic with a short summary and detailed legal analysis. Topics range from dog issues (like dog bite laws, lost dogs, custody issues involving pets in divorce) to complex federal laws such as the U.S. Endangered Species Act or the Animal Welfare Act. | Basic page | ||
| Canada - Northwest Territories Statutes/Nunavut - Dog Act | R.S.N.W.T. 1988, c. D-7, s. 1 | This set of laws comprises the Northwest Territories Dog Act. Under the Act, owners may not allow their dogs to run loose and must provide them with sufficient food and water. Further, the law provides that no person shall punish or abuse a dog in a manner or to an extent that is cruel or unnecessary or drive a dog or dog team on a sidewalk situated on the street or road of a settlement. The law also sets forth the procedure for the impoundment and release of dogs. For the latest version of this Act, see the pdf. | Statute | |
| Viilo v. Eyre | 547 F.3d 707 (C.A.7 (Wis.),2008) | 2008 WL 4694917 |
Virginia Viilo sued the City of Milwaukee and two of its police officers under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 after an officer shot and killed her dog 'Bubba.' The district court denied the defendants' motion for summary judgment on the basis of qualified immunity and the defendants took an interlocutory appeal challenging this denial. The court found that defendants' interjection of factual disputes deprived the court of jurisdiction. The court further held that it is a violation of the Fourth Amendment for a police officer to shoot and kill a companion dog that poses no imminent danger while the dog’s owner is present and trying to assert custody over her pet. |
Case |
| Anderson v. Evans | 314 F.3d 1006 (9th Cir. 2002) | 55 ERC 1481, 2 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 12,197, 2002 Daily Journal D.A.R. 14,605 |
Concerned citizens and animal conservation groups brought an action against United States government, challenging the government's approval of quota for whale hunting by Makah Indian Tribe located in Washington state. On appeal by the plaintiffs, the Court of Appeals held that the failure of the government to prepare an Environmental Impact Statement before approving a whale quota for the Makah Tribe violated National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). The court also found that the Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA) applied to tribe's proposed whale hunt, as the proposed whale takings were not excluded by the treaty with the tribe. |
Case |