Results

Displaying 111 - 120 of 6125
Title Citation Alternate Citation Agency Citation Summary Type
United States of America v. Victor Bernal and Eduardo Berges 90 F.3d 465 (11th Cir. 1996)

Victor Bernal and Eduardo Berges were convicted of various crimes in connection with an attempt to export two endangered primates--an orangutan and a gorilla--from the United States to Mexico in violation of the Lacey Act Amendments of 1981 and the Endangered Species Act of 1973.  While the main issue before the court was a downward departure in sentencing guidelines, the court found the purpose of the Lacey Act is protect those species whose continued existence is presently threatened by gradually drying up international market for endangered species, thus reducing the poaching of those species in their native countries.

Case
In Defense of Animals v. U.S. Dept. of Interior 648 F.3d 1012 (C.A.9 (Cal.),2011) 2011 WL 3559951 (C.A.9 (Cal.),2011)

Plaintiff animal non-profits filed a Motion for a Temporary Restraining Order and/or Preliminary Injunction to stop the government from rounding up, destroying, and auctioning off wild horses and burros in the Twin Peaks Herd Management Area. Plaintiffs alleged that the government's actions violated the Wild Free–Roaming Horses and Burros Act and the National Environmental Policy Act. However, the initial phase of the plan sought to be enjoined (the roundup) had taken place. The court held that the interlocutory appeal from the denial of a preliminary injunction was moot because the roundup had already taken place.

Case
OK - Disaster Planning - Emergency Operations Plan ESF 11 Emergency Operations Plan (EOP) The purpose of this Emergency Support Function (ESF) #11 Annex is to coordinate State agencies, OKVOAD, Federal and other response entities in efforts to control and eradicate, as appropriate, any outbreak of a highly contagious or economically devastating animal/zoonotic (i.e. transmitted between animals and people) disease, or any outbreak of an economically devastating plant pest or disease; ensure the safety and security of the commercial food supply; protect natural resources; and provide for the safety and well-being of household pets during an emergency response or evacuation situation. [See FEMA Disaster Assistance Policy DAP9523.19 Title: “Eligible Costs Related to Pet Evacuation and Sheltering” for definition of “Household Pet”.] Administrative
CA - Sharks - § 2021. Shark fins; unlawful possession, sale, offer for sale, trading, or distribution; exceptions West's Ann.Cal.Fish & G.Code §§ 2021, 2021.5 CA FISH & G § 2021, 2021.5

Under these California statutes, it is unlawful to possess, sell, offer for sale, trade, or distribute a shark fin. However, there are exceptions for people who have a license or permit. In addition, people and restaurants who have a shark fin as of January 1, 2012 may possess it until January 1, 2013.

Statute
Animal Legal Defense Fund v. Veneman 490 F.3d 725 (9th Cir. 2007) 07 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 6427

Plaintiffs, who include the Animal Legal Defense Fund ("ALDF"), the Animal Welfare Institute ("AWI"), and three individuals, challenged the United States Department of Agriculture's ("USDA") decision not to adopt a Draft Policy that would have provided guidance to zoos, research facilities, and other regulated entities in how to ensure the psychological well-being of nonhuman primates in order to comply with the federal Animal Welfare Act ("AWA").  The district court granted USDA's motion to dismiss, to which the ALDF timely appealed. Over a vigorous dissent, an appeals court panel reversed the district court's decision. After a sua sponte call, however, a majority of active judges voted to rehear the case en banc. Yet, before the rehearing occurred, the parties had reached a settlement and had agreed to dismiss the case with prejudice provided that the panel's opinion and judgment were vacated. The majority of the en banc panel agreed to vacate the panel's opinion and judgment with prejudice, but Judge Thomas filed the dissenting opinion.

Case
Animal Legal Defense Fund v. Veneman 469 F.3d 826 (9th Cir.(Cal.), 2006) 2006 WL 3375347 (9th Cir.(Cal.)), 06 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 10, 733

Plaintiffs, who include the Animal Legal Defense Fund ("ALDF"), the Animal Welfare Institute ("AWI"), and three individuals, challenged the United States Department of Agriculture's ("USDA") decision not to adopt a Draft Policy that would have provided guidance to zoos, research facilities, and other regulated entities in how to ensure the psychological well-being of nonhuman primates in order to comply with the federal Animal Welfare Act ("AWA"). Plaintiffs challenge the decision not to adopt the Draft Policy under the Administrative Procedure Act ("APA") as arbitrary and capricious. The district court did not reach the merits of plaintiffs' suit because it determined that the USDA's decision did not constitute reviewable final agency action. This court disagreed, finding that at least one of the plaintiffs has standing under Article III of the Constitution. Further, the court concluded that the district court has authority under the APA to review the USDA's decision not to adopt the Draft Policy. Opinion Vacated on Rehearing en Banc by Animal Legal Defense Fund v. Veneman , 490 F.3d 725 (9th Cir., 2007).

Case
MN - Hunting, Internet - § 97B.115. Computer-assisted remote hunting prohibition M.S.A. § 97B.115 Minn. Stat. Ann. § 97B.115 (West) This statute prohibits computer-assisted remote hunting within the state of Minnesota. The statute also prohibits the operation or selling of any computer software or service that allows a person to engage in computer-assisted hunting. A person who violates this section is guilty of a misdemeanor. Statute
CA - Swap Meets - Chapter 10. Sale of Animals at Swap Meets. West's Ann. Cal. Health & Safety Code § 122370 - 122374 CA HLTH & S § 122370 - 122374 This chapter (effective January 1, 2016) covers the sale of animals at swap meets in the state. A swap meet operator may allow a vendor to sell animals at a swap meet so long as the local jurisdiction has adopted standards for the care and treatment of the animals. The care and treatment of the animals must include that time that the animals are at the swap meet and during the transportation to and from the swap meet. The swap meet vendors must maintain, among other things, sanitary facilities for the animals, provide proper heating and ventilation in the facilities, provide adequate nutrition and humane care and treatment, and provide adequate space for all kept in the facilities. A swap meet vendor who offers for sale at a swap meet in a jurisdiction that has not authorized the sale is guilty of an infraction punishable by a fine up to $100. If a swap meet vendor is found guilty of this infraction for a subsequent time, he or she will be fined up to $500 per violation. Some exceptions include: events held by 4-H Clubs, Junior Farmers Clubs, Future Farmer Clubs, the California Exposition and State Fair, the sale of cattle on consignment at any public cattle sales market, and a public animal control agency or shelter. Statute
US - AWA - 1970 Amendments to AWA, House Report No. 91-1651 House Report No. 91-1651

By 1970 it was apparent that changes in the law would be required if the goal of humane treatment of animals was to be realized. There were four areas of significant change to the AWA in the 1970 amendments (definition of animal, expansion of who is subject to AWA, laboratory practices, and enforcement).

Statute
In re Polar Bear Endangered Species Act Listing and Section 4(d) Rule Litigation-MDL No.1993 United States Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit. 720 F.3d 354 (D.C. Cir. 2013) 2013 WL 2991027 (D.C. Cir. 2013)

Hunters and hunting organizations sued the Secretary of Interior, the Director of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and the Service itself after the Service listed the polar bear as a threatened species under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) and barred the importation of polar bear trophies under the Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA). On appeal, the appeals court affirmed the lower court’s decision to grant the defendants' motion of summary judgment.

Case

Pages