Results

Displaying 21 - 30 of 6018
Title Citation Alternate Citation Agency Citation Summary Type
Pearson v. U.S. Dept. of Agriculture Slip Copy, 2011 WL 559083 (C.A.6,2011)

Petitioner seeks review of the decision and order of the Secretary of the USDA, terminating his license to own and exhibit wild animals (82 lions, tigers, and bears), issuing a cease and desist order, and imposing civil sanctions in the amount of $93,975 in violation of the AWA. In 2006, inspection showed 280 incidents of non-compliance. On appeal, the Sixth Circuit first held that there was no abuse of discretion in failing to grant the continuance after a fire at Petitioner's home because he is unable to resulting establish prejudice. Further, the Court discounted Petitioner's challenge that the revocation of his license was not supported where the court found the evidence "substantial, perhaps overwhelming." 

Case
SC - Endangered Species - Chapter 123 Department of Natural Resources S.C. Code of Regulations R. 123-150 - 170 SC ADC 123-150 to 170

These South Carolina regulations list the non-game wildlife on the state's List of Endangered Wildlife Species, as well as the animals that are considered threatened and "in need of management." If an animal is listed as threatened or endangered, a permit must be obtained in certain situations to avoid penalty for "taking" a listed species. Furthermore, these regulations also set out provisions for hunting alligators and selling alligator meat and hide; for obtaining vultures, kites, hawks, eagles, ospreys, falcons, and owls for the practice of falconry; and for protecting sea turtles by regulating the nets on shrimping trawls.

Administrative
CT - Cruelty, reporting - § 17a-100a. Reporting of neglected or cruelly treated animals. C.G.S.A. § 17a-100a, C.G.S.A. § 17a-100c Conn. Gen. Stat. Ann. § 17a-100a (West), Conn. Gen. Stat. Ann. § 17a-100c (West)

These Connecticut statutes require state employees who work with children and families to also report suspected animal harm, neglect, or cruelty. The statutes explain how the reporting should be completed and describes the implementation of training programs for employees to recognize animal abuse. The statutes also discuss the development of an annual report on acutal or suspected instances of animal neglect or cruelty within the state.  

Statute
Trager v. Thor 516 N.W.2d 69 (Mich.,1994) 445 Mich. 95 (Mich.,1994)

In this Michigan case involving an action for damages after personal injury, the father of the dog’s owner was visiting his son's home when he agreed to supervise the dog while his son and daughter-in-law went shopping.   The n eighbor’s child was subsequently bitten by the dog, which had been put by defendant into a bedroom. This court held that the defendant, as a temporary caretaker of the dog, could not be held to the strict liability standard of an owner keeper, but could be liable under theory of negligence. Thus, a genuine issue of material fact remained as to whether the father was negligent in fulfilling his duty of care in supervising the dog, which precluded summary judgment in a negligence action.

Case
MN - Wildlife, possession - Chapter 97A. Game and Fish. Possession and Transportation of Wild Animals. M. S. A. § 97A.501 - 56 MN ST § 97A.501 - 56

These Minnesota statutes restrict possession and transportation of wild animals. No one may transport wild animals taken, bought, or sold in violation of the game and fish laws. In general, a person may not take, import, transport, or sell an endangered species of wild animal, but there are exceptions.

Statute
GOODWIN v. E. B. NELSON GROCERY CO. 132 N.E. 51 (Mass. 1921) 239 Mass. 232 (1921)

Plaintiff brought her dog into a store. The dog fought with the store owner's cat. After the fight was over, and the animals were calm, plaintiff reached down and grabbed the cat's front paw. The cat scratched and bit plaintiff, who brought a negligence action against the store owner. The court held that plaintiff could not recover because plaintiff did not exercise due care when she interfered with a strange animal, and there was no evidence that the cat was vicious.

Case
ID - Assistance Animal - Assistance Animal/Guide Dog Laws I.C. §§ 18-5811 - 5812B; I.C. §§ 56-701 - 708 ID ST § 18-5811 - 5812B; ID ST § 56-701 - 708

The following statutes comprise the state's relevant assistance animal and guide dog laws.

Statute
People v. Beauvil 2008 WL 2685893; 872 N.Y.S.2d 692 (Table), (N.Y.Just.Ct.,2008) 20 Misc.3d 1116(A); 2008 WL 2685893; 2008 N.Y. Slip Op. 51370(U)

This New York case came before this Court after the District Attorney refused to prosecute the case. The complaintant alleged that on April 16, 2008, he was walking down a public sidewalk when a loose dog, later identified as belonging to the defendants, ran up to and bit the complainant on the hand. Police were contacted and a complaint was made to the Village of Westbury Attorney who then advised the complainant to file a formal complaint with the Nassau County District Attorney's office. The District Attorney's office declined to prosecute and instead suggested that the Village handle the matter. This Court held that it has no jurisdiction to hear the misdemeanor charge stemming from the violation of Agriculture & Markets Law § 121 (but then did list the other avenues available for the complaintant). This Court, sua sponte, also held that the Agriculture & Markets Law § 121, as applied to Nassau County Village Justice Courts, is unconstitutional. This was due to the fact that Village Courts have no jurisdiction (or ability, as pointed out by the court) to hear misdemeanors.

Case
Connecticut General Statutes: Chapter 338: Section 6619 Conn. Gen. Stat. § 6619 (1918)

Section 6619 of Chapter 338 from the 1918 General Laws of Connecticut covers information, procedure and bail. Specifically, the statute states the circumstances for reach a search warrant will be issued.

Statute
Creekstone Farms Premium Beef v. United States Department of Agriculture 517 F.Supp.2d 8 (D.D.C.,2007) 2007 WL 1020786 (D.D.C.,2007) Creekstone Farms Premium Beef (Creekstone) sought to independently test their slaughtered cows so they could more safely provide meat to consumers. Creekstone requested testing kits from the USDA, the same kits that USDA inspectors use to test for BSE. The district court ruled that Creekstone could perform the tests. Case

Pages